A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of computed tomography and 3D magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating glenohumeral instability bone loss. | LitMetric

Background: To determine whether the addition of 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard MRI sequences is comparable to 3D computed tomographic (CT) scan evaluation of glenoid and humeral bone loss in glenohumeral instability.

Methods: Eighteen patients who presented with glenohumeral instability were prospectively enrolled and received both MRI and CT within 1 week of each other. The MRI included an additional sequence (volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) that underwent postprocessing for reformations. The addition of a VIBE protocol, on average, is an additional 4-4.5 minutes in the scanner. CT data also underwent 3D postprocessing, and therefore each patient had 4 imaging modalities (2D CT, 2D MRI, 3D CT reformats, and 3D MRI reformats). Each sequence underwent the following measurements from 2 separate reviewers: glenoid defect, glenoid defect percentage, humeral defect, humeral defect percentage, and evaluation of glenoid track and version. Paired t tests were used to assess differences between imaging modalities and χ for glenoid track. Intra- and interobserver reliability were evaluated. Bland-Altman tests were also performed to assess the agreement between CT and MRI. In addition, we determined the cost of each imaging modality at our institution.

Results: 3D MRI measurements for glenoid and humeral bone loss measurements were comparable to 3D CT (Table 1). There were no significant differences for glenoid defect size and percentage, or humeral defect size and percentage (P > .05) (Table 2). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated strong agreement, with small measurement errors for 3D CT and 3D MRI percentage glenoid bone loss. There was also no difference in evaluation for determining on vs. off track between any of the imaging modalities. Inter- and intrarater reliability was good to excellent for all CT and MRI measurements (r ≥ 0.7).

Conclusion: 3D MRI measurements for bone loss in glenohumeral instability through use of VIBE sequence were equivalent to 3D CT. At our institution, undergoing MRI with 3D reconstruction was 1.67 times cheaper than MRI and CT with 3D reconstructions. 3D MRI may be a useful adjuvant to standard MRI sequences to allow concurrent soft tissue and accurate assessment of glenoid and humeral bone loss in glenohumeral instability.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.06.015DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bone loss
24
glenohumeral instability
16
mri
15
glenoid humeral
12
humeral bone
12
loss glenohumeral
12
imaging modalities
12
glenoid defect
12
humeral defect
12
mri measurements
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!