A prospective comparison of computerized arthrotomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the glenohumeral joint

Arlon H. Jahnke, Steve A. Petersen, Christian Neumann, Lynn Steinbach, Frank Morgan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Twenty-five patients with shoulder instability or shoul der pain of undetermined etiology were prospectively evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging and com puterized arthrotomography. Actual lesions were de termined by arthroscopy or at the time of open surgical repair. The images obtained were interpreted independ ently by three radiologists blinded to both surgical results and the results of previous diagnostic tests. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were determined for each imaging technique for a variety of pathologic entities, including anterior and posterior labral abnor malities, capsular redundancy, biceps-labral complex abnormalities, humeral head (Hill-Sachs) impression le sions, and glenohumeral loose bodies. Analysis of im aging techniques also included construction of receiver operator curves for labral abnormalities. Magnetic resonance imaging showed better diagnos tic results in the evaluation of glenoid labral and humeral head impression lesions (P < 0.05). Both imaging tech niques were equally successful in identifying biceps- labral lesions and intraarticular loose bodies within the glenohumeral joint. Neither imaging technique was con sistent in the evaluation of capsular redundancy. Re ceiver operator curve analysis confirmed that magnetic resonance imaging was the more accurate imaging study in evaluating anterior and posterior glenoid labral abnormalities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)695-701
Number of pages7
JournalThe American Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume20
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1992

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A prospective comparison of computerized arthrotomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the glenohumeral joint'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this