ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Comparison of conventional MRI and CT scans for assessing bony parameters and classifying On- and Off-Track lesions in anterior shoulder dislocations.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShoulder dislocation is the most common major joint dislocation, with anterior dislocations accounting for 95% of cases. Accurate assessment of bony lesions, such as glenoid bone loss (GBL) and Hill-Sachs lesions, is critical for treatment planning. While computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard for evaluating bony parameters, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may serve as a viable alternative, offering no radiation exposure. This study aims to compare the reliability of conventional 2D (two- Dimensional)-MRI with 2D-CT in measuring bony parameters and classifying lesions as on- or off-track. It was hypothesized that there is no difference in evaluation between MRI and conventional CT scans.
methodsA retrospective case-control study was conducted on 61 patients (mean age 45 ± 19 years) with anterior shoulder dislocations who underwent both CT and MRI imaging. Radiographic measurements, including glenoid diameter, glenoid defect (in width), Hill-Sachs lesion and bony bridge, were obtained independently from CT and MRI scans. Patients were categorized as on- or off-track based on the glenoid track and Hill-Sachs index. Statistical analyses included correlation tests, Bland-Altman plots, interrater agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient), and sensitivity and specificity analyses for lesion classification.
resultsMRI showed good agreement with CT across most parameters, with mean differences of less than 1 mm for glenoid defect, glenoid diameter, and Hill-Sachs lesions. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.62 (bony bridge) to 0.93 (glenoid defect). Bland-Altman plots revealed good agreement for glenoid parameters but higher variance for the Hill-Sachs lesion and bony bridge. MRI correctly classified 89% of on-track lesions (sensitivity) and 76% of off-track lesions (specificity). Interrater agreement was excellent for glenoid defect measurements (ICC = 0.962) and lower for the bony bridge (ICC = 0.848).
conclusionConventional MRI demonstrates high reliability in measuring bony parameters and good accuracy in classifying on- and off-track lesions compared to CT. MRI is a viable alternative for preoperative evaluation, particularly in cases with minor bony defects. However, in indeterminate defects, a CT scan is recommended to ensure accurate measurements, classification and treatment planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.