MR arthrography of the shoulder: optimizing pulse sequence protocols for the evaluation of cartilage and labrum

SSR white paper: guidelines for utilization and performance of direct MR arthrography

OBJECTIVE

Direct magnetic resonance arthrography (dMRA) is often considered the most accurate imaging modality for the evaluation of intra-articular structures, but utilization and performance vary widely without consensus. The purpose of this white paper is to develop consensus recommendations on behalf of the Society of Skeletal Radiology (SSR) based on published literature and expert opinion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Standards and Guidelines Committee of the SSR identified guidelines for utilization and performance of dMRA as an important topic for study and invited all SSR members with expertise and interest to volunteer for the white paper panel. This panel was tasked with determining an outline, reviewing the relevant literature, preparing a written document summarizing the issues and controversies, and providing recommendations.

RESULTS

Twelve SSR members with expertise in dMRA formed the ad hoc white paper authorship committee. The published literature on dMRA was reviewed and summarized, focusing on clinical indications, technical considerations, safety, imaging protocols, complications, controversies, and gaps in knowledge. Recommendations for the utilization and performance of dMRA in the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle/foot regions were developed in group consensus.

CONCLUSION

Although direct MR arthrography has been previously used for a wide variety of clinical indications, the authorship panel recommends more selective application of this minimally invasive procedure. At present, direct MR arthrography remains an important procedure in the armamentarium of the musculoskeletal radiologist and is especially valuable when conventional MRI is indeterminant or results are discrepant with clinical evaluation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test of MRA versus MRI for detection superior labrum anterior to posterior lesions type II-VII

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in superior labrum anterior to posterior lesions (type II-VII) of the shoulder.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed and Scopus search engines, an electronic search of articles was performed from inception to February 19, 2016. Diagnostic performance of index tests was compared by the summary area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In all, 117 of 493 studies were eligible and 32 studies (2,013 shoulders) and 11 studies (1,498 shoulders) were evaluated with MRA and MRI. The summary sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (positive and negative) and AUROC were 0.87 (95 % confidence interval, CI: 0.82, 0.91), 0.92 (95 %CI: 0.85, 0.95), 10.28 (95 %CI: 5.84, 18.08), 0.14 (95 %CI: 0.10, 0.20) and 0.94 (95 %CI: 0.92, 0.96) respectively for MRA, and 0.76 (95 %CI: 0.61, 0.86), 0.87 (95 %CI: 0.71, 0.95), 5.89 (95 %CI: 2.5, 13.86), 0.28 (95 %CI: 0.17, 0.47) and 0.94 (95 %CI: 0.92, 0.96) respectively for MRI. The diagnostic performance of MRA was superior to MRI by both direct and indirect comparisons for the detection of SLAP lesions.

Advanced Imaging of Glenohumeral Instability: It May Be Less Complicated than It Seems

Glenohumeral joint instability is usually an intimidating topic for most radiologists due to both the complexity of related anatomical and biomechanical considerations and the increasing number of classifications and acronyms reported in the literature in association with this condition. In this short review, we aim to demystify glenohumeral instability by first focusing on the relevant anatomy and pathophysiology. Second, we will review what the important imaging findings are and how to describe them for the clinician in the most relevant yet simple way. The role of the radiologist in assessing glenohumeral instability lesions is to properly describe the stabilizing structures involved (bone, soft-tissue stabilizers, and their periosteal insertion) to localize them and to attempt to characterize them as acute or chronic. Impaction fractures on the glenoid and humeral sides are important to specify, locate, and quantify. In particular, the description of soft-tissue stabilizers should include the status of the periosteal insertion of the capsulo-labro-ligamentous complex. Finally, any associated cartilaginous or rotator cuff tendon lesion should be reported to the clinician.