Magnetic resonance imaging accuracy for the diagnosis of superior labrum anterior-posterior lesions in the community setting: Eighty-three arthroscopically confirmed cases

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 580-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan L. Reuss ◽  
Randy Schwartzberg ◽  
Michael B. Zlatkin ◽  
Andrew Cooperman ◽  
John R. Dixon
2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason C. Phillips ◽  
Chad Cook ◽  
Stacy Beaty ◽  
Michael J. Kissenberth ◽  
Paul Siffri ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 2645-2650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kent Sheridan ◽  
Christopher Kreulen ◽  
Sunny Kim ◽  
Walter Mak ◽  
Kirk Lewis ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jolene C. Hardy ◽  
Gregory T. Evangelista ◽  
William A. Grana ◽  
Robert E. Hunter

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guanghui Yang ◽  
Chengrui Fu ◽  
Guanzhong Gong ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Qian Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Cardiac movement can affect the accuracy of the evaluation of the location of heart and its substructures by planning computed tomography (CT). We aimed to measure the margin displacement and calculate compensatory margins through breath-hold electrocardiograph (ECG)-gated 4-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4D-MRI) for oesophageal radiotherapy.Methods: The study enrolled 10 patients with oesophageal radiotherapy plans and pretreatment 4D-MRI data. The displacement of the heart and its substructures was measured between the end of the systolic and diastolic phases in one cardiac cycle. The compensatory margins were calculated by extending the planning CT to cover the internal target volume (ITV) of all structures. Differences between groups were tested with the Kruskal-Wallis H test.Results: The extent of movement of the heart and its substructures during one cardiac cycle were approximately 4.0-26.1 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP),left-right (LR), and cranial-caudal (CC) axes, and the compensatory margins should be applied to the planning CT by extending the margins by 1.7, 3.6, 1.8, 3.0, 2.1, and 2.9 mm for the pericardium, 1.2, 2.5, 1.0, 2.8, 1.8, and 3.3 mm for the heart, 3.8, 3.4, 3.1, 2.8, 0.9, and 2.0 mm for the interatrial septum, 3.3, 4.9, 2.0, 4.1, 1.1, and 2.9 mm for the interventricular septum, 2.2, 3.0, 1.1, 5.3, 1.8, and 2.4 mm for the left ventricular muscle (LVM), 5.9, 3.4, 2.1, 6.1, 5.4, and 3.6 mm for the antero-lateral papillary muscle (ALPM), and 6.6, 2.9, 2.6, 6.6, 3.9, and 4.8 mm for the postero-medial papillary muscle (PMPM) in the anterior, posterior, left, right, cranial, and caudal directions.Conclusions: The locations of the heart and its substructures determined by planning CT were not able to represent the true positions due to cardiac movement, and compensatory margins can be applied to decrease the influence of movement.


2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 220-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelo Novelino Simão ◽  
Emily N. Vinson ◽  
Charles E. Spritzer

Abstract Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of a "meniscoid" superior labrum. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 582 magnetic resonance imaging examinations of shoulders. Of those 582 examinations, 110 were excluded, for a variety of reasons, and the final analysis therefore included 472 cases. Consensus readings were performed by three musculoskeletal radiologists using specific criteria to diagnose meniscoid labra. Results: A meniscoid superior labrum was identified in 48 (10.2%) of the 472 cases evaluated. Arthroscopic proof was available in 21 cases (43.8%). In 10 (47.6%) of those 21 cases, the operative report did not include the mention a superior labral tear, thus suggesting the presence of a meniscoid labrum. In only one of those cases were there specific comments about a mobile superior labrum (i.e., meniscoid labrum). In the remaining 11 (52.4%), surgical correlation demonstrated superior labral tears. Conclusion: A meniscoid superior labrum is not an infrequent finding. Depending upon assumptions and the requirement of surgical proof, the prevalence of a meniscoid superior labrum in this study was between 2.1% (surgically proven) and 4.8% (projected). However, superior labral tears are just as common and are often confused with meniscoid labra.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ankur M Manvar ◽  
Sheetal M Bhalani ◽  
Grant E Garrigues ◽  
Nancy M Major

ABSTRACT Objective To improve the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) interpretation of a ‘meniscoid-type’ superior labrum vs a superior labral tear by evaluation of a simple sign. Materials and methods Retrospective analysis of our institution's shoulder MRIs and MRAs yielded 144 patients thought to have a superior labral tear. Fifty-five patients had arthroscopy. Analysis of the orthopaedic database for superior labral repair surgeries performed in the same time frame yielded seven additional patients without prospective MRI/MRA diagnosis of superior labral tear. Results Two of 17 (11.8%) patients thought to have superior labral tears by MRI or MRA were found to have no labral pathology at arthroscopy. Both cases failed to have extension of high signal intensity behind the biceps anchor to the most posterior oblique coronal image. Nine of 38 (23.7%) patients thought to have superior labral tears by MRI or MRA were found to have no labral pathology at arthroscopy, but a meniscoid-type superior labrum. Four of seven patients known to have superior labral tears by arthroscopy but incorrectly diagnosed as meniscoid-type superior labrum on MRI or MRA, were retrospectively found to have extension of high signal intensity in the superior labrum to the most posterior image. Conclusion Signal abnormality that continues through the remainder of the superior labrum posterior to the biceps anchor indicates a superior labral tear. Absence of this sign in the setting of more anterior high signal under the labrum may indicate a meniscoid variant. Manvar AM, Bhalani SM, Garrigues GE, Major NM. Distinguishing Superior Labral Tears from Normal Meniscoid Insertions with Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The Duke Orthop J 2012;2(1):44-49.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-111
Author(s):  
Kevin Krughoff ◽  
Lawrence Dagrosa ◽  
John D. Seigne ◽  
Einar F. Sverrisson ◽  
William F. Santis ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document