Liu Gaoming, Huang Cheng, Li Yusheng, Jiang Shide, Lu Wenhao, Yacoub Hassan Mahamat Hassan, Essien Anko Elijah, Pavel Volotovski, Xiao Wenfeng
Department of Orthopedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Department of Orthopaedics, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.
Arthroscopy. 2025 Apr;41(4):1072-1084.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.03.043. Epub 2024 Apr 9.
To compare the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with that of 3D computed tomography (CT) in evaluating glenoid bone loss (GBL).
This review aligned with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were obtained from data inception to August 28, 2023. The search term "glenoid bone loss" was extracted and analyzed via stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 combined with the QUADAS-Comparative to assess the heterogeneity of included studies.
A total of 1,589 related studies were retrieved, and 10 studies were finally included, of which a total of 143 shoulders were evaluated. The index test in QUADAS-Comparative was low risk in 9 studies. 3D MRI measurements of GBL were primarily best-fit circles (n = 9). In both clinical and cadaveric studies, the mean percentages of GBL measured by 3D MRI were 0.38% to 2.19% and 0.25% to 6.1% when compared with 3D CT and standard reference values, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient agreement greater than 0.9 between GBL percentages measured by 3D CT and 3D MRI. 3D MRI also could accurately measure glenoid width, glenoid height, humeral head width, and height. 3D MRI reconstruction time was similar to that of 3D CT, which was mainly 10 to 15 minutes.
In both clinical and cadaveric studies, compared with 3D CT, 3D MRI is accurate and consistent in assessing glenohumeral bone, especially in measuring GBL, and the reconstruction time of 3D MRI is similar to 3D CT.
Level Ⅲ, systematic review of Level Ⅱ-Ⅲ studies.
比较三维(3D)磁共振成像(MRI)与三维计算机断层扫描(CT)在评估盂骨缺损(GBL)方面的准确性。
本综述符合系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目指南。从数据起始到2023年8月28日获取了PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Embase和科学网的数据。通过严格的纳入和排除标准提取并分析搜索词“盂骨缺损”。使用诊断准确性研究的质量评估(QUADAS)-2并结合QUADAS-比较来评估纳入研究的异质性。
共检索到1589项相关研究,最终纳入10项研究,共评估了143个肩部。QUADAS-比较中的索引测试在9项研究中为低风险。GBL的3D MRI测量主要采用最佳拟合圆(n = 9)。在临床和尸体研究中,与3D CT和标准参考值相比,3D MRI测量的GBL平均百分比分别为0.38%至2.19%和0.25%至6.1%。3D CT和3D MRI测量的GBL百分比之间的组内相关系数一致性大于0.9。3D MRI还可以准确测量盂骨宽度、盂骨高度、肱骨头宽度和高度。3D MRI重建时间与3D CT相似,主要为10至15分钟。
在临床和尸体研究中,与3D CT相比,3D MRI在评估盂肱关节骨方面准确且一致,尤其是在测量GBL方面,并且3D MRI的重建时间与3D CT相似。
Ⅲ级,对Ⅱ-Ⅲ级研究的系统评价。