Diagnostic performance of long head of biceps tendon tears on MRI: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Biceps tendon tendinosis
Long head of the biceps tendon tear
MR arthrography
MRI
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
19
07
2023
accepted:
21
11
2023
revised:
07
11
2023
medline:
27
12
2023
pubmed:
27
12
2023
entrez:
26
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic performance of conventional MRI and MR arthrography for tendinosis, and partial and complete tears of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) using arthroscopy as the reference standard. A systematic review was performed using predefined data fields in PubMed, and all articles published from January 2000 up to April 2022 were retrospectively pooled and reviewed. Six MRI studies on complete tear (n = 555) and ten studies on partial tear/tendinosis (n = 2487) were included in the analysis. Two of the included studies in each group investigated the use of MR arthrography. The data sets were analyzed using a univariate approach with the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model and the proportional hazards model. MRI shows high specificities in diagnosing complete tears of the LHBT ranging from 93.0 to 99.0%. Diagnostic sensitivity was more heterogeneous ranging from 55.9 to 90.0%. The overall negative likelihood ratio was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.17-0.50) and the overall positive likelihood ratio was 37.3 (95% CI: 11.9-117.4). The mean sensitivity in diagnosing partial tear/tendinosis of the LHBT was 67.8% (95% CI: 54.3-78.9%) and the specificity was 75.9% (95% CI: 63.6-85.0%), resulting in a balanced accuracy of 71.9%. The overall negative likelihood ratio was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.32-0.59) and the overall positive likelihood ratio was 2.64 (95% CI: 1.91-3.65). MRI is highly specific for the diagnosis of complete tears of the LHBT, whereas diagnostic sensitivity was more heterogeneous. The diagnosis of partial tears and/or tendinosis of the LHBT remains challenging on MRI, which may warrant complementary clinical examination or other imaging modalities to increase diagnostic confidence in equivocal cases. Conventional MRI and MR arthrography have high diagnostic performance for complete tendon tear when compared to arthroscopy. The diagnosis of tendinosis/partial tears remains challenging and may require comparison with clinical tests and other imaging modalities. •There is no clear consensus regarding the primary imaging modality for the evaluation of LHBT disorders. •Conventional MRI and MR arthrography are highly specific in diagnosing complete tears of the LHBT. •Diagnosis of partial tears/tendinosis of the LHBT on conventional MRI and MR arthrography remains a diagnostic challenge.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38148406
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10521-6
pii: 10.1007/s00330-023-10521-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
Sarmento M (2015) Long head of biceps: from anatomy to treatment. Acta Reumatol Port 40(1):26–33
pubmed: 25351662
Sakurai G, Ozaki J, Tomita Y, Nakagawa Y, Kondo T, Tamai S (1998) Morphologic changes in long head of biceps brachii in rotator cuff dysfunction. J Orthop Sci 3(3):137–142
doi: 10.1007/s007760050033
pubmed: 9683766
Ahrens PM, Boileau P (2007) The long head of biceps and associated tendinopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(8):1001–1009
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19278
pubmed: 17785735
Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC, Cohen SB (2012) Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy 28(4):576–582
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.10.017
pubmed: 22284407
Chen CH, Hsu KY, Chen WJ, Shih CH (2005) Incidence and severity of biceps long head tendon lesion in patients with complete rotator cuff tears. J Trauma 58(6):1189–1193
doi: 10.1097/01.TA.0000170052.84544.34
pubmed: 15995469
Longo UG, Loppini M, Marineo G, Khan WS, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2011) Tendinopathy of the tendon of the long head of the biceps. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 19(4):321–332
doi: 10.1097/JSA.0b013e3182393e23
pubmed: 22089281
Alpantaki K, McLaughlin D, Karagogeos D, Hadjipavlou A, Kontakis G (2005) Sympathetic and sensory neural elements in the tendon of the long head of the biceps. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(7):1580–1583
pubmed: 15995126
Chen RE, Voloshin I (2018) Long head of biceps injury: treatment options and decision making. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 26(3):139–144
doi: 10.1097/JSA.0000000000000206
pubmed: 30059449
Szabó I, Boileau P, Walch G (2008) The proximal biceps as a pain generator and results of tenotomy. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 16(3):180–186
doi: 10.1097/JSA.0b013e3181824f1e
pubmed: 18703979
Hamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M, Kobayashi Y (1990) Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears. A long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 254:92–96
doi: 10.1097/00003086-199005000-00014
Aldon-Villegas R, Perez-Cabezas V, Chamorro-Moriana G (2021) Efficacy of management of associated dysfunctions on rotator cuff and long head of the biceps: systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 16(1):501
doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02621-0
pubmed: 34399799
pmcid: 8365915
Cardoso A, Amaro P, Barbosa L, Coelho AM, Alonso R, Pires L (2019) Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests directed to the long head of biceps tendon in a surgical population: a combination of old and new tests. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 28(12):2272–2278
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.007
pubmed: 31500987
Lee RW, Choi SJ, Lee MH et al (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of 3T conventional shoulder MRI in the detection of the long head of the biceps tendon tears associated with rotator cuff tendon tears. Skeletal Radiol 45(12):1705–1715
doi: 10.1007/s00256-016-2501-9
pubmed: 27717975
Dubrow S, Shishani Y, Streit J, Gobezie R, Robbin M (2014) Diagnostic accuracy in detecting tears in the proximal biceps tendon using standard nonenhancing shoulder MRI. Open Access J Sports Med 5:81–87
doi: 10.2147/OAJSM.S58225
pubmed: 24891814
pmcid: 4011903
Banerjee M, Müller-Hübenthal J, Grimme S et al (2016) Moderate value of non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging after non-dislocating shoulder trauma. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(6):1888–1895
doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3102-6
pubmed: 24923686
Borrero CG, Costello J, Bertolet M, Vyas D (2018) Effect of patient age on accuracy of primary MRI signs of long head of biceps tearing and instability in the shoulder: an MRI-arthroscopy correlation study. Skeletal Radiol 47(2):203–214
doi: 10.1007/s00256-017-2783-6
pubmed: 28983764
Kim JY, Rhee SM, Rhee YG (2019) Accuracy of MRI in diagnosing intra-articular pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon: results with a large cohort of patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20(1):270
doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2654-5
pubmed: 31153372
pmcid: 6545217
Tadros AS, Huang BK, Wymore L, Hoenecke H, Fronek J, Chang EY (2015) Long head of the biceps brachii tendon: unenhanced MRI versus direct MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol 44(9):1263–1272
doi: 10.1007/s00256-015-2152-2
pubmed: 25920387
Taylor SA, Newman AM, Nguyen J et al (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging currently fails to fully evaluate the biceps-labrum complex and bicipital tunnel. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 32(2):238–244
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.08.008
Baptista E, Malavolta EA, Gracitelli MEC et al (2019) Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detection of tears and instability of proximal long head of biceps tendon: an evaluation of 100 shoulders compared with arthroscopy. Skeletal Radiol 48(11):1723–1733
doi: 10.1007/s00256-019-03214-z
pubmed: 30937471
Nascimento AT, Claudio GK (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast as a diagnostic method for partial injury of the long head of the biceps tendon. Rev Bras Ortop 52(1):40–45
doi: 10.1016/j.rbo.2016.01.006
pubmed: 28194380
pmcid: 5290080
Kang Y, Lee JW, Ahn JM, Lee E, Kang HS (2017) Instability of the long head of the biceps tendon in patients with rotator cuff tear: evaluation on magnetic resonance arthrography of the shoulder with arthroscopic correlation. Skeletal Radiol 46(10):1335–1342
doi: 10.1007/s00256-017-2669-7
pubmed: 28528385
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (2023) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4. Cochrane. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
Steinmann S, Pfeifer CG, Brockhausen C, Docheva D (2020) Spectrum of tendon pathologies: triggers, trails and end-state. Int J Mol Sci 21(3):844
doi: 10.3390/ijms21030844
pubmed: 32013018
pmcid: 7037288
McGee S (2002) Simplifying likelihood ratios J Gen Intern Med 17(8):646–649
pubmed: 12213147
Holling H (2006) Meta-analysis of diagnostic studies based upon SROC-curves: a mixed model approach using the Lehmann family. Stat Model 12:1–29
Gatsonis C, Paliwal P (2006) Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187(2):271–281
doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.0226
pubmed: 16861527
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48
doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Doebler P, Holing H, Sousa-Pinto B (2020) Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy with mada. R package version 0.5.10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mada
Mohtadi NG, Vellet AD, Clark ML et al (2004) A prospective, double-blind comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopy in the evaluation of patients presenting with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13(3):258–265
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.01.003
pubmed: 15111894
Yin L, Zhang H, Kong Y, Zhang X, Yan W, Zhang J (2021) Distance between the supraspinatus and long head of the biceps tendon on sagittal MRI: a new tool to identify anterior supraspinatus insertion injury. J Exp Orthop 8(1):108
doi: 10.1186/s40634-021-00410-6
pubmed: 34821972
pmcid: 8617234
Sofka CM, Ciavarra GA, Hannafin JA, Cordasco FA, Potter HG (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging of adhesive capsulitis: correlation with clinical staging. HSS J 4(2):164–169
doi: 10.1007/s11420-008-9088-1
pubmed: 18815860
pmcid: 2553174
Liu F, Cheng X, Dong J, Zhou D, Han S, Yang Y (2020) Comparison of MRI and MRA for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 99(12):e19579
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019579
pubmed: 32195972
Hitachi S, Takase K, Tanaka M et al (2011) High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of rotator cuff tears using a microscopy coil: noninvasive detection without intraarticular contrast material. Jpn J Radiol 29(7):466–474
doi: 10.1007/s11604-011-0583-9
pubmed: 21882088
Bélanger V, Dupuis F, Leblond J, Roy J (2019) Accuracy of examination of the long head of the biceps tendon in the clinical setting: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med 51(7):479–491
doi: 10.2340/16501977-2563
pubmed: 31243466
Farooqi AS, Lee A, Novikov D et al (2021) Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med 9(10):232596712110351
doi: 10.1177/23259671211035106
Skendzel JG, Jacobson JA, Carpenter JE, Miller BS (2011) Long head of biceps brachii tendon evaluation: accuracy of preoperative ultrasound. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(4):942–948
Teefey SA, Hasan SA, Middleton WD, Patel M, Wright RW, Yamaguchi K (2000) Ultrasonography of the rotator cuff. A comparison of ultrasonographic and arthroscopic findings in one hundred consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82(4):498–504
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200004000-00005
pubmed: 10761940
Nourissat G, Tribot-Laspiere Q, Aim F, Radier C (2014) Contribution of MRI and CT arthrography to the diagnosis of intra-articular tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(8):S391–S394
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.09.005
pubmed: 25454333
Nuelle CW, Stokes DC, Kuroki K, Crim JR, Sherman SL (2018) Radiologic and histologic evaluation of proximal bicep pathology in patients with chronic biceps tendinopathy undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy 34(6):1790–1796
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.01.021
pubmed: 29573932
Salameh JP, Bossuyt PM, McGrath TA et al (2020) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist. BMJ 370:m2632
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2632
pubmed: 32816740
McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD et al (2018) Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 319:388–396
doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163
pubmed: 29362800