Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging are Similarly Reliable in the Assessment of Glenohumeral Arthritis and Glenoid Version

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 University of Tennessee-Campbell Clinic Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

2 Duke University Medical School, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Durham, North Carolina

3 Memphis Shoulder and Orthopaedic Surgery, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the intra- and inter-observer reliability of CT and T2-weighted
MRI for evaluation of the severity of glenoid wear, glenohumeral subluxation, and glenoid version.
Methods: Sixty-one shoulders with primary osteoarthritis had CT and MRI scans before shoulder arthroplasty. All
slices were blinded and randomized before evaluation. Two fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons and three orthopaedic
surgery trainees reviewed the images to classify glenoid wear (Walch and Mayo classifications) and glenohumeral
subluxation (Mayo classification). Glenoid version was measured using Friedman’s technique. After a minimum twoweek
interval, the process was repeated.
Results: Intraobserver reliability was good for the CT group and fair-to-good for the MRI group for the Walch, Mayo
glenoid, and Mayo subluxation classifications; interobserver reliability was poor for the CT and fair-to-poor for the MRI
group. For the measurement of glenoid version, intraobserver reliability was good the CT and substantial for the MRI
group; interobserver agreement was good for both groups. There were no significant differences in reliability between
staff surgeons and trainees for any of the classifications or measurements.
Conclusion: CT and MRI appear similarly reliable for the classification of glenohumeral wear patterns. For the
measurement of glenoid version, MRI was slightly more reliable than CT within observers. Differences in training
level did not produce substantial differences in agreement, suggesting these systems can be applied by observers of
different experience levels with similar reliability.
Level of evidence: III

Keywords

References

1. Lo IK, Griffin S, Kirkley A.The development of a
disease-specific quality of life measurement tool
for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: The Western
Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2001; 9(8):771-778.
2. Petersson CJ. Degeneration of the gleno-humeral
joint. An anatomical study. Acta Orthop Scand 1983;
54(3):277-283.
3. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS.
Total shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty
for rheumatoid arthritis of the shoulder: results of
303 consecutive cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;
16(6):683-690.
4. Farron A, Terrier A, Buchler P. Risks of loosening of
a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006; 15(4):521-526.
5. Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, Deffenbaugh D,
Williams G. Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder
arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14(1 Suppl 
S):111S-21S.
6. Lazarus MD, Jensen KL, Southworth C, Matsen FA 3rd.
The radiographic evaluation of keeled and pegged
glenoid component insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am
2002; 84-A (7):1174-1182.
7. Gillespie R1, Lyons R, Lazarus M. Eccentric reaming
in total shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study.
Orthopedics 2009; 32(1):21.
8. Hoenecke HR Jr, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C,
D’Lima DD. Accuracy of CT-based measurements
of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19(2):166-171.
9. Biswas D, Bible JE, Bohan M, Simpson AK, Whang PG,
Grauer JN. Radiation exposure from musculoskeletal
computerized tomographic scans. J Bone Joint Surg
Am 2009; 91(8):1882-1889.
10. Throckmorton TW, Zarkadas PC, Sperling JW, Cofield
RH. Pegged versus keeled glenoid components in total
shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 
19(5):726-733.
11. Nowak DD, Gardner TR, Bigliani LU, Levine WN,
Ahmad, CS. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability
of the Walch classification in primary glenohumeral
arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19(2):180-183.
12. Nyffeler RW, Jost B, Pfirrmann CW, Gerber C.
Measurement of glenoid version: conventional
radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003; 12(2):493-496.
13. Raymond AC, McCann PA, Sarangi PP. Magnetic
resonance scanning vs axillary radiography in the
assessment of glenoid version for osteoarthritis. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22(8):1078-1083.
14. Walch G, Boulahia A, Boileau P, Kempf JF. Primary
glenohumeral osteoarthritis: clinical and radiographic
classification. The Aequalis Group. Acta Orthopaedica
Belgica 1998; 64 Suppl 2:46-52.
15. Burgkart R, Glaser C, Hyhlik-Dürr A, Englmeier KH,
Reiser M, Eckstein F. Magnetic resonance imagingbased
assessment of cartilage loss in severe
osteoarthritis: accuracy, precision, and diagnostic
value. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44(9):2072-2077.
16. Fucentese SF, von Roll A, Koch PP, Epari DR, Fuchs
B, Schottle PB. The patella morphology in trochlear
dysplasia--a comparative MRI study. Knee 2006;
13(2):145-150.
17. Inui H, Sugamoto K, Miyamoto T, Machida A, Hashimoto
J, Nobuhara K. Evaluation of three-dimensional
glenoid structure using MRI. J Anat 2001; 199(Pt
3):323-328.
18. Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM. The use of
computerized tomography measurement of glenoid
version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74(7):1032-1037.
19. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic
study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral
osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 1999; 14(6):756-760.
20. Edwards TB, Boulahia A, Kempf JF, Boileau P, Nemoz
C, Walch G. The influence of rotator cuff disease on
the results of shoulder arthroplasty for primary
osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study. J Bone
Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A (12):2240-2248.
21. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh
M, Gould R, et al. Radiation dose associated with
common computed tomography examinations and
the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer.
Arch Intern Med 2009; 169(22):2078-2086.
22. Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Interrater
reliability of an arthritic glenoid morphology
classification system. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;
17(4):575-577.
23. Budge MD, Lewis GS, Schaefer E, Coquia S, Flemming
DJ, Armstrong AD. Comparison of standard twodimensional
and three dimensional corrected glenoid
version measurements. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;
20(4):577-83.
24. Kwon YW, Powell KA, Yum JK, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP.
Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for
the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow
Surg 2005; 14(1):85-90.
25. Walch G, Vezeridis PS, Boileau P, Deransart P, Chaoui
J. Three-dimensional planning and use of patientspecific
guides improve glenoid component position:
an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015;
24(2):302-309.
26. Bokor DJ, O’Sullivan MD, Hazan GJ. Variability of
measurement of glenoid version on computed
tomography scan. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999;
8(6):595-598.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 9, Issue 1
January 2021
Pages 64-69

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 March 2019
  • Accept Date: 14 November 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics