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 arthrography

• Published in: European radiology 2023-05, Vol.33 (5), p.3276-3285
• Main Authors: Ozel, Mehmet Ali, Ogul, Hayri, Koksal, Ali, Kose, Mehmet, Tuncer, Kutsi, Eren, Suat, Kantarci, Mecit
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arthrography - methods; Computed tomography; Diagnosis; Diagnostic Radiology; Diagnostic systems; High resolution; Humans; Imaging; Imaging techniques; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; Internal Medicine; Interventional Radiology; Magnetic Resonance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Medical diagnosis; Medical imaging; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neuroradiology; Observers; Radiology; Retrospective Studies; Shoulder; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Ultrasound
• ISSN: 1432-1084; 0938-7994; 1432-1084
• DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09443-0

Objectives 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