We have located links that may give you full text access.
Magnetic resonance imaging is comparable to computed tomography for determination of glenoid version but does not accurately distinguish between Walch B2 and C classifications.
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2017 April
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) scan is the standard for the preoperative assessment of glenoid version and morphology before total shoulder arthroplasty. However, the capacity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to visualize bone morphology has improved with advancing technology. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of MRI to CT for assessment of glenoid version and Walch classification.
METHODS: Three fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons assessed glenoid version and Walch classification of 30 patients with primary shoulder osteoarthritis who received both CT and MRI scans before total shoulder arthroplasty. Version measurements, Walch classification, and observer agreement were compared.
RESULTS: Mean glenoid version was -15.5° and -18.6° by CT and MRI, respectively (P = .17). Interobserver reliability coefficients were good for both imaging modalities (CT, 0.73; MRI, 0.62). Intraobserver coefficients were good to excellent for CT (range, 0.76-0.87) and good for MRI (range, 0.75-0.79). For Walch classification, interobserver reliability for both modalities was merely fair, whereas intraobserver reliability was moderate to good. Although identification of type A1, A2, and B1 was nearly identical between CT and MRI, there was observer disagreement on type B2 (P = .001) and C glenoids (P = .03). Specifically, MRI underidentified type B2 and overidentified type C compared with CT.
CONCLUSIONS: MRI is largely comparable to CT scan for evaluation of the glenoid, with similar measurements of version and identification of less extreme Walch glenoids. However, MRI is less accurate at distinguishing between type B2 and C glenoids.
METHODS: Three fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons assessed glenoid version and Walch classification of 30 patients with primary shoulder osteoarthritis who received both CT and MRI scans before total shoulder arthroplasty. Version measurements, Walch classification, and observer agreement were compared.
RESULTS: Mean glenoid version was -15.5° and -18.6° by CT and MRI, respectively (P = .17). Interobserver reliability coefficients were good for both imaging modalities (CT, 0.73; MRI, 0.62). Intraobserver coefficients were good to excellent for CT (range, 0.76-0.87) and good for MRI (range, 0.75-0.79). For Walch classification, interobserver reliability for both modalities was merely fair, whereas intraobserver reliability was moderate to good. Although identification of type A1, A2, and B1 was nearly identical between CT and MRI, there was observer disagreement on type B2 (P = .001) and C glenoids (P = .03). Specifically, MRI underidentified type B2 and overidentified type C compared with CT.
CONCLUSIONS: MRI is largely comparable to CT scan for evaluation of the glenoid, with similar measurements of version and identification of less extreme Walch glenoids. However, MRI is less accurate at distinguishing between type B2 and C glenoids.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app