[Shoulder injuries in overhead athletes: utility of MR arthrography]

Bilateral magnetic resonance imaging findings in individuals with unilateral shoulder pain

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used to diagnose structural abnormalities in the shoulder. However, subsequent findings may not be the source of symptoms. The aim of this study was to determine comparative MRI findings across both shoulders of individuals with unilateral shoulder symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 123 individuals from the community who had self-reported unilateral shoulder pain with no signs of adhesive capsulitis, no substantial range-of-motion deficit, no history of upper-limb fractures, no repeated shoulder dislocations, and no neck-related pain. Images in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes with T1, T2, and proton density sequences were generated and independently and randomly interpreted by 2 examiners: a board-certified, fellowship-trained orthopedic shoulder surgeon and a musculoskeletal radiologist. Absolute and relative frequencies for each MRI finding were calculated and compared between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulders. Agreement between the shoulder surgeon and the radiologist was also determined.

RESULTS

Abnormal MRI findings were highly prevalent in both shoulders. Only the frequencies of full-thickness tears in the supraspinatus tendon and glenohumeral osteoarthritis were higher (approximately 10%) in the symptomatic shoulder according to the surgeon's findings. Agreement between the musculoskeletal radiologist and shoulder surgeon ranged from slight to moderate (0.00-0.51).

CONCLUSION

Most abnormal MRI findings were not different in frequency between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulders. Clinicians should be aware of the common anatomic findings on MRI when considering diagnostic and treatment planning.

Magnetic resonance imaging arthrography following type II superior labrum from anterior to posterior repair: interobserver and intraobserver reliability

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic repair of type II superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions is a common surgical procedure. However, anatomic healing following repair has rarely been investigated. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability of magnetic resonance imaging arthrography (MRA) following type II SLAP repair has not previously been investigated. This is of particular interest due to recent reports of poor clinical results following type II SLAP lesion repair.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the MRA findings following arthroscopic type II SLAP lesion repair and determine its intraobserver and interobserver reliability.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis), Level of Evidence, 2.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with an isolated type II SLAP lesion (confirmed via diagnostic arthroscopy) underwent standard suture anchor-based repair. At a mean of 25.2 months post-operatively, patients underwent a standardized MRA protocol to investigate the integrity of the repair. MRAs were independently reviewed by two radiologists and a fellowship trained shoulder surgeon. The outcomes were classified as healed SLAP repair or re-torn SLAP repair.

RESULTS

On average, 54% of MRAs were interpreted as healed SLAP repairs while 46% of MRAs were interpreted as having a re-torn SLAP repair. Overall, only 43% of the studies had 100% agreement across all interpretations. The intraobserver reliability ranged from 0.71 to 0.81 while the interobserver reliability between readers ranged from 0.13 to 0.44 (Table 1).

CONCLUSION

The intraobserver agreement of MRA in the evaluation of type II SLAP repair was substantial to excellent. However, the interobserver agreement of MRA was poor to fair. As a result, the routine use of MRA in the evaluation of type II SLAP lesion repair should be utilized with caution. A global evaluation of the patient, including detailed history and physical examination, is paramount in determining the cause of failure and one should not rely on MRA alone.

Are radiologists superior to orthopaedic surgeons in diagnosing instability-related shoulder lesions on magnetic resonance arthrography? A multicenter reproducibility and accuracy study

BACKGROUND

We compared the diagnostic reproducibility and accuracy of musculoskeletal radiologists with orthopaedic shoulder surgeons in 2 large medical centers in assessing magnetic resonance arthrograms (MRAs) of patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Forty-five surgically confirmed MRAs were assessed by 4 radiologists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons, 2 radiologic teams, and 2 orthopaedic teams. During MRA assessment and surgery, the same 7-lesion scoring form was used. κ Coefficients, sensitivity, specificity, and differences in percentage of agreement or correct diagnosis (P < .05, McNemar test) were calculated per lesion and overall per the 7 lesion types.

RESULTS

The overall κ between the individual radiologists (κ = 0.51, κ = 0.46) and orthopaedic surgeons (κ = 0.46, κ = 0.41) was moderate. Although the overall percentage of agreement between the radiologists was slightly higher than that between the orthopaedic surgeons in both centers (80.0% vs 77.5% and 75.2% vs 73.7%), there was no significant difference. In each medical center, however, the most experienced orthopaedic surgeon was exceedingly more accurate than both radiologists per the 7 lesion types (81.9% vs 72.4%/74.6% and 76.5% vs 67.3%/73.7%). In 3 of 4 cases, this difference was significant. Overall accuracy improvement through consensus assessment was merely established for the weakest member of each team.

CONCLUSION

Experienced orthopaedic surgeons are more accurate than radiologists in assessing traumatic anterior shoulder instability-related lesions on MRA. In case of diagnosis disagreement, these orthopaedic surgeons should base their treatment decision on their own MRA interpretation.

Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered

BACKGROUND

Shoulder pain is a very common symptom. Disorders of the rotator cuff tendons due to wear or tear are among the most common causes of shoulder pain and disability. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and ultrasound (US) are increasingly being used to assess the presence and size of rotator cuff tears to assist in planning surgical treatment. It is not known whether one imaging method is superior to any of the others.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic test accuracy of MRI, MRA and US for detecting any rotator cuff tears (i.e. partial or full thickness) in people with suspected rotator cuff tears for whom surgery is being considered.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to February 2011. We also searched trial registers, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies. No language or publication restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all prospective diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed MRI, MRA or US against arthroscopy or open surgery as the reference standard, in people suspected of having a partial or full thickness rotator cuff tear. We excluded studies that selected a healthy control group, or participants who had been previously diagnosed with other specific causes of shoulder pain such as osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Studies with an excessively long period (a year or longer) between the index and reference tests were also excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data on study characteristics and results of included studies, and performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. Our unit of analysis was the shoulder. For each test, estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study were plotted in ROC space and forest plots were constructed for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. Meta-analyses were performed using the bivariate model to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. We were unable to formally investigate potential sources of heterogeneity because of the small number of studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies of people with suspected rotator cuff tears (1147 shoulders), of which six evaluated MRI and US (252 shoulders), or MRA and US (127 shoulders) in the same people. Many studies had design flaws, with the potential for bias, thus limiting the reliability of their findings. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was judged to be low or unclear. For each test, we observed considerable heterogeneity in study results, especially between studies that evaluated US for the detection of full thickness tears and studies that evaluated MRA for the detection of partial thickness tears. The criteria for a positive diagnostic test (index tests and reference standard) varied between studies.Meta-analyses were not possible for studies that assessed MRA for detection of any rotator cuff tears or partial thickness tears. We found no statistically significant differences in sensitivity or specificity between MRI and US for detecting any rotator cuff tears (P = 0.13), or for detecting partial thickness tears (P = 1.0). Similarly, for the comparison between MRI, MRA and US for detecting full thickness tears, there was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic performance (P = 0.7). For any rotator cuff tears, the summary sensitivity and specificity were 98% (95% CI 92% to 99%) and 79% (95% CI 68% to 87%) respectively for MRI (6 studies, 347 shoulders), and 91% (95% CI 83% to 95%) and 85% (95% CI 74% to 92%) respectively for US (13 studies, 854 shoulders). For full thickness tears, the summary sensitivity and specificity were 94% (95% CI 85% to 98%) and 93% (95% CI 83% to 97%) respectively for MRI (7 studies, 368 shoulders); 94% (95% CI 80% to 98%) and 92% (95% CI 83% to 97%) respectively for MRA (3 studies, 183 shoulders); and 92% (95% CI 82% to 96%) and 93% (95% CI 81% to 97%) respectively for US (10 studies, 729 shoulders).Because few studies were direct head-to-head comparisons, we could not perform meta-analyses restricted to these studies. The test comparisons for each of the three classifications of the target condition were therefore based on indirect comparisons which may be prone to bias due to confounding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MRI, MRA and US have good diagnostic accuracy and any of these tests could equally be used for detection of full thickness tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered. The diagnostic performance of MRI and US may be similar for detection of any rotator cuff tears. However, both MRI and US may have poor sensitivity for detecting partial thickness tears, and the sensitivity of US may be much lower than that of MRI. The strength of evidence for all test comparisons is limited because most studies were small, heterogeneous and methodologically flawed, and there were few comparative studies. Well designed studies that directly compare MRI, MRA and US for detection of rotator cuff tears are needed.