2026-10-19T01:36:02Zhttps://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/oai/request

oai:ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net:ebyu/120682026-10-18T20:43:16Zopenairedrivercom_ebyu_10000col_ebyu_10001

Detection of the glenoid bare spot by non-arthrographic MR imaging, conventional MR arthrography, and 3D high-resolution T1-weighted VIBE MR arthrography: comparison with CT arthrographyOzel, Mehmet AliOgul, HayriKoksal, AliKose, MehmetTuncer, KutsiEren, SuatKantarci, MecitArthrographyGlenoid cavityMagnetic resonance imagingTomographyHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray Computedadultarticlebreath holdingcontrolled studydiagnosisdiagnostic accuracydiagnostic errordiagnostic test accuracy studydiagnostic valuefemalehumaninterrater reliabilitymajor clinical studymalenuclear magnetic resonance imagingradiologistretrospective studyT1 weighted imagingproceduresthree-dimensional imagingx-ray computed tomographyObjectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-arthrographic MR imaging, conventional MR arthrography, and 3D T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) MR arthrography sequences as compared with a CT arthrography in the diagnosis of glenoid bare spot. Methods: A retrospective study of 216 patients who underwent non-arthrographic MR imaging, conventional MR arthrography, VIBE MRI arthrography, and CT arthrogram between January 2011 and March 2022 was conducted. The diagnostic accuracy of non-arthrographic MR imaging, direct MR arthrography, and VIBE MRI arthrography in the detection of glenoid bare spot was compared with that of CT arthrography. All studies were reviewed by 2 MSK radiologists. Interobserver agreement for MR imaging and MR arthrographic findings was calculated. Results: Sixteen of 216 patients were excluded. Twenty-three of 200 shoulders had glenoid bare spot on CT arthrographic images. The glenoid bare spot was detected in 11 (47.8%) and 7 (30.4%) patients on conventional non-arthrographic MR images and in 18 (78.3%) and 16 (69.6%) patients on conventional MR arthrograms by observers 1 and 2, respectively. Both observers separately described the bare spot in 22 of 23 patients (95.7%) on 3D volumetric MR arthrograms. Interobserver variabilities were fair agreement for conventional non-arthrographic MR imaging (κ = 0.35, p < 0.05), moderate agreement for conventional MR arthrogram (κ = 0.50, p < 0.05), and near-perfect agreement for 3D volumetric MR arthrogram reading (κ = 0.87, p < 0.05). Conclusions: A 3D high-resolution T1-weighted VIBE MR arthrography sequence may yield diagnostic performance that is comparable with that of CT arthrography in the diagnosis of glenoid bare spot. Key Points: •Glenoid bare spot should not be misdiagnosed as a transchondral defect of the glenoid surface by radiologists. •A 3D high-resolution T1-weighted VIBE MR arthrography sequence may be used as a high-sensitivity imaging technique in the diagnosis of glenoid bare spot. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH2023Articlehttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/12068https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09443-00938-7994enEuropean Radiologyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/tr/items/ebyu/12068