Key result
2D FIESTA magnetic resonance arthrogram strongly correlated with 3D CT for calculating glenoid bone loss (concordance correlation coefficient 0.998; 95% CI 0.993-0.999).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to correlate 2D FIESTA magnetic resonance imaging protocols with 3D CT for the calculation of glenoid bone loss.
Does 2D FIESTA MRI correlate with 3D CT for the calculation of glenoid bone loss in patients undergoing shoulder stabilization?
Cohort (n=12)
Does 2D FIESTA MRI correlate with 3D CT for the calculation of glenoid bone loss in patients undergoing shoulder stabilization?
Effect estimate: CCC 0.998 (95% CI 0.993-0.999)
Absolute Event Rate: 11.8% vs 11.5%
2D FIESTA magnetic resonance arthrogram is a highly accurate alternative to 3D CT for calculating glenoid bone loss in shoulder stabilization patients.
Background: To correlate two-dimensional (2D) fast-imaging employing steady-state acquisition (FIESTA) magnetic resonance imaging protocols with three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) for calculation of glenoid bone loss (GBL). FIESTA is a high-resolution protocol with high contrast, high signal-to-noise ratio, and sharp edge definition. Methods: We included patients who underwent a shoulder stabilization procedure from 2010 to 2023 with 2D FIESTA and 2D proton density fat-saturation (PD FS) magnetic resonance arthrogram sequences as well as 3D CT of the shoulder. We excluded patients with history of prior shoulder surgery or posterior instability, if the CT and magnetic resonance imaging were >90 days apart or if there was a documented instability event between imaging studies. Two raters calculated the primary outcome of GBL by the perfect-circle linear method twice for each modality separated by 3 weeks. Intrarater and inter-rater reliabilities were calculated. We analyzed linear regression models and concordance correlation coefficients between modalities. Results: Twelve patients were analyzed. Overall mean GBL by imaging modality was 12.1 ± 11.2% on PD FS, 11.8 ± 10.0% on FIESTA, and 11.5 ± 9.7% on 3D CT. GBL had excellent intrarater and inter-rater reliabilities (>0.9) on all modalities. For GBL, concordance correlation coefficients were 0.982 (95% CI 0.960-0.992) for PD FS vs. CT and 0.998 (95% CI 0.993-0.999) for FIESTA vs. CT. Linear regression models improved both PD FS and FIESTA accuracy to within 0.6% of CT-calculated GBL 95% of the time. Conclusion: 2D FIESTA magnetic resonance arthrogram is a suitable alternative to 3D CT reconstruction for calculation of GBL and slightly outperformed PD FS sequences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feeley et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Glenoid bone loss (n=12). 2D FIESTA magnetic resonance arthrogram vs. 3D computed tomography (CT) was evaluated on Glenoid bone loss (GBL) calculated by the perfect-circle linear method (CCC 0.998, 95% CI 0.993-0.999). 2D FIESTA magnetic resonance arthrogram strongly correlated with 3D CT for calculating glenoid bone loss (concordance correlation coefficient 0.998; 95% CI 0.993-0.999).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: