Author:
Al-Ani Zeid,Ali Syed,Beardmore Simon,Parmar Vinay,Chooi Oh Teik
Abstract
Background:
Although subspecialist orthopaedic surgeons usually request Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram (MRA) examinations, some orthopaedic surgeons may request this examination for a body part that is different from their subspecialty. The purpose of the study is to compare the MRA and the clinical findings in the subspecialist and non-subspecialist groups.
Method:
Retrospective analysis of MRA examinations over a 6-month period. Findings were compared with the clinical information.
Results:
There were 144 examinations (69 shoulder, 42 wrist and 33 hip). 85% of these were subspecialist referrals; 60% of them showed findings compatible with the clinical diagnosis. 15% of the MRA examinations were non-subspecialist referrals; 52% of them correlated with the clinical findings.
Overall, clinical information agreed with MRA findings for shoulder labral tears, hip labral tears and wrist triangular fibrocartilage complex tears in 63.3%, 64.5% and 61.5% respectively. The subspecialist group were more accurate than the non-subspecialist group in diagnosing hip labral tears (68% vs. 50%) and triangular fibrocartilage complex tears (62.5% vs. 50%). On the contrary, shoulder MRA and clinical findings correlated better in the non-subspecialist group (77.8%) compared to the subspecialist group (63.3%). However, the small number of requests generated by the non-subspecialist group may affect the results. Suspected scapholunate ligament injury showed low correlation with MRA at 26.7% (33.3% in the subspecialist group and 0% in the non-subspecialist group).
Conclusion:
Generally, the clinical findings are more accurate in the subspecialist referrals when compared to MRA findings and therefore a subspecialist referral is preferred. The low agreement between clinically suspected scapholunate ligament injuries and wrist MRA probably reflects the relative difficulty in establishing this diagnosis clinically.
Publisher
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Reference15 articles.
1. Palmer WE, Caslowitz PL.
Anterior shoulder instability: diagnostic criteria determined from prospective analysis of 121 MR arthrograms.
Radiology
1995;
197
(3)
: 819-25.
2. Chandnani VP, Yeager TD, DeBerardino T, et al.
Glenoid labral tears: prospective evaluation with MRI imaging, MR arthrography, and CT arthrography.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
1993;
161
(6)
: 1229-35.
3. Bencardino JT, Beltran J, Rosenberg ZS, et al.
Superior labrum anterior-posterior lesions: diagnosis with MR arthrography of the shoulder.
Radiology
2000;
214
(1)
: 267-71.
4. Tirman PF, Steinbach LS, Belzer JP, Bost FW.
A practical approach to imaging of the shoulder with emphasis on MR imaging.
Orthop Clin North Am
1997;
28
(4)
: 483-515.
5. Parmar H, Jhankaria B, Maheshwari M, et al.
Magnetic resonance arthrography in recurrent anterior shoulder instability as compared to arthroscopy: a prospective comparative study.
J Postgrad Med
2002;
48
(4)
: 270-3.