Subscapularis (SSC) tendon tears: diagnostic performance and reliability of magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) with arthroscopic correlation and comparison with clinical tests

Objective To evaluate the diagnostic performance and reliability of magnetic resonance of arthrography (MRA) in diagnosis of subscapularis (SSC) tendon tears between two reviewers with varying levels of experience, and compare the results with clinical tests. Materials and methods SSC tendons were r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Skeletal radiology 2021-08, Vol.50 (8), p.1647-1655
Hauptverfasser: Khil, Eun Kyung, Choi, Jung-Ah, Lee, Eugene, Oh, Joo Han
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective To evaluate the diagnostic performance and reliability of magnetic resonance of arthrography (MRA) in diagnosis of subscapularis (SSC) tendon tears between two reviewers with varying levels of experience, and compare the results with clinical tests. Materials and methods SSC tendons were retrospectively evaluated in a total of 272 patients with arthroscopic confirmations. A total of 548 shoulder MRAs were evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists, and SSC tendon pathologies were classified into three groups: intact tendon ( n  = 149), partial-thickness tear ( n  = 92), or full-thickness tear ( n  = 31). Diagnostic performance was determined using arthroscopy as gold standard and compared with results of four clinical tests. Intra- and inter-observer reliabilities of two reviewers were evaluated using kappa statistics. Results For full-thickness tears, mean values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of reviewer 1/reviewer 2 were 71.0%/87.1%, 97.3%/98.3%, and 94.4%/95.5%, respectively. For partial-thickness tears, mean values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 72.8%/73.4%, 78.3%/81.2%, and 76.5%/78.5%, respectively. Intra- and inter-observer reliabilities for both reviewers were good to very good ( k  = 0.85/0.93, p  
ISSN:0364-2348
1432-2161
DOI:10.1007/s00256-020-03697-1