Skeletal radiology · 2014
The quantification of glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder instability; MR-arthro compared to 3D-CT.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Markenstein Jeroen E, Jaspars Kjell C C J, van der Hulst Victor P M, Willems W Jaap
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate if magnetic resonance imaging with intra-articular contrast (MR-arthro) is as reliable as three-dimensionally reconstructed computed tomography imaging (3D-CT) in quantifying the glenoid bone loss in patients with anterior shoulder instability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients were included. Sagittal MR-arthro and 3D-CT images of the glenoid surface were obtained pre-operatively. Two observers measured these images twice with OsiriX software in a randomized and blinded way. The intraclass correlations (ICC) of the intra- and inter-observer reliability within one method and an additional Bland-Altman plot for calculating agreement between the two methods were obtained.
RESULTS: The joint estimates of the intra-observer reliability, taking into account the data from both observer A and B, for 3D-CT and MR-arthro were good to excellent. The intra-observer reliability was 0.938 (95% CI: 0.879, 0.968) for 3D-CT and 0.799 (95% CI: 0.639, 0.837) for MR-arthro. The inter-observer reliability between the two observers within one method (3D-CT or MR-arthro) was moderate to good. 3D-CT: 0.724 (95% CI: 0.236, 0.886) and MR-arthro: 0.534 (95% CI: 0.128, 0.762). Comparing both the 3D-CT and MR-arthro method, a Bland-Altman plot showed satisfying differences with the majority of outcomes (89%) within 1 SD.
CONCLUSIONS: Good to excellent intra- and moderate to good inter-observer correlations and a satisfying Bland-Altman plot when compared to 3D-CT show tendencies that MR-arthro is reliable and valid for measuring bony defects of the glenoid.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients were included. Sagittal MR-arthro and 3D-CT images of the glenoid surface were obtained pre-operatively. Two observers measured these images twice with OsiriX software in a randomized and blinded way. The intraclass correlations (ICC) of the intra- and inter-observer reliability within one method and an additional Bland-Altman plot for calculating agreement between the two methods were obtained.
RESULTS: The joint estimates of the intra-observer reliability, taking into account the data from both observer A and B, for 3D-CT and MR-arthro were good to excellent. The intra-observer reliability was 0.938 (95% CI: 0.879, 0.968) for 3D-CT and 0.799 (95% CI: 0.639, 0.837) for MR-arthro. The inter-observer reliability between the two observers within one method (3D-CT or MR-arthro) was moderate to good. 3D-CT: 0.724 (95% CI: 0.236, 0.886) and MR-arthro: 0.534 (95% CI: 0.128, 0.762). Comparing both the 3D-CT and MR-arthro method, a Bland-Altman plot showed satisfying differences with the majority of outcomes (89%) within 1 SD.
CONCLUSIONS: Good to excellent intra- and moderate to good inter-observer correlations and a satisfying Bland-Altman plot when compared to 3D-CT show tendencies that MR-arthro is reliable and valid for measuring bony defects of the glenoid.