Acta radiologica open · 2021
MR arthrography of the shoulder; correlation with arthroscopy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jensen Janni, Kristensen Maja T, Bak Lene, Kristensen Søren S, Graumann Ole
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Shoulder dislocation is a common injury, particularly in the younger population. Common long-term sequelae include pain, recurrence, and shoulder arthritis. Immediate and correct diagnosis following shoulder dislocation is key to achieving optimum outcomes. Although magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) is frequently used for diagnosing shoulder instabilities, arthroscopy is still considered the gold standard.
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the diagnostic value of arthroscopy and MRA of the shoulder joint.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study estimates the sensitivity and specificity of MRA of the shoulder. Data from patients who had undergone shoulder MRA and subsequent arthroscopy during a 5-year period were retrospectively collected. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using the arthroscopic findings as the gold standard. Moreover, diagnostic accuracy was estimated using McNemar's test.
RESULTS: In total, 205 cases were included from which 372 pathological findings were uncovered during the arthroscopic procedures as opposed to 360 findings diagnosed from the MRA images. The glenoid labral tear was the most common finding reported by MRA and arthroscopy. For the detection of glenoid labral tears on MRA, the sensitivity was 0.955 but with eight missed lesions; the specificity was 0.679. Capsular tears, rotator cuff tears, and cartilage lesions proved the most difficult to correctly diagnose using MRA with sensitivities of 0.2, 0.346, and 0.366, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: With a sensitivity of 95%, MRA is a valuable diagnostic tool for assessing shoulder instabilities, particularly when diagnosing labral lesions, including bony and soft-tissue Bankart lesions. Sensitivities and specificities for other glenohumeral lesions are less convincing, however.
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the diagnostic value of arthroscopy and MRA of the shoulder joint.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study estimates the sensitivity and specificity of MRA of the shoulder. Data from patients who had undergone shoulder MRA and subsequent arthroscopy during a 5-year period were retrospectively collected. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using the arthroscopic findings as the gold standard. Moreover, diagnostic accuracy was estimated using McNemar's test.
RESULTS: In total, 205 cases were included from which 372 pathological findings were uncovered during the arthroscopic procedures as opposed to 360 findings diagnosed from the MRA images. The glenoid labral tear was the most common finding reported by MRA and arthroscopy. For the detection of glenoid labral tears on MRA, the sensitivity was 0.955 but with eight missed lesions; the specificity was 0.679. Capsular tears, rotator cuff tears, and cartilage lesions proved the most difficult to correctly diagnose using MRA with sensitivities of 0.2, 0.346, and 0.366, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: With a sensitivity of 95%, MRA is a valuable diagnostic tool for assessing shoulder instabilities, particularly when diagnosing labral lesions, including bony and soft-tissue Bankart lesions. Sensitivities and specificities for other glenohumeral lesions are less convincing, however.