Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2021; 56(01): 078-082
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701288
Artigo Original
Ombro e Cotovelo

Double-Blinded Randomized Study of the Correlation between Simple Radiography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of the Critical Shoulder Angle: Reproducibility and Learning Curve[*]

Article in several languages: português | English
José Carlos Garcia  Júnior
1   Instituto NAEON, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Leandro Sossai Altoe
1   Instituto NAEON, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Rachel Felix Muffareg do Amaral
2   Diagnósticos da América S/A (Dasa), São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Andre Yui Aihara
2   Diagnósticos da América S/A (Dasa), São Paulo, SP, Brasil
3   Departamento de Radiologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Hilton Vargas Lutfi
1   Instituto NAEON, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Marcelo Boulos Dumans Mello
1   Instituto NAEON, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to obtain the critical shoulder angle (CSA) comparing the results obtained through radiography and MRI, and assess the learning curves.

Methods In total, 15 patients were evaluated in a blinded and randomized way. The CSA was measured and compared among groups and subgroups.

Results The mean angles measured through the radiographic images were of 34.61 ± 0.67 and the mean angles obtained through the MRI scans were of 33.85 ± 0.53 (p = 0.29). No significant differences have been found among the groups. The linear regression presented a progressive learning curve among the subgroups, from fellow in shoulder surgery to shoulder specialist and radiologist.

Conclusion There was no statistically significant difference in the X-rays and MRI assessments. The MRI seems to have its efficacy associated with more experienced evaluators. Data dispersion was smaller for the MRI data regardless of the experience of the evaluator.

Keywords

rotator cuff - shoulder joint - radiography - magnetic resonance imaging - reproducibility of results

* Work developed at Núcleo Avançado de Estudos em Ortopedia e Neurocirurgia (Naeon) and Diagnósticos da América S/A (Dasa), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 10 March 2019

Accepted: 30 October 2019

Article published online:
27 April 2020

© 2020. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Fukuda H, Hamada K, Yamanaka K. Pathology and pathogenesis of bursal-side rotator cuff tears viewed from en bloc histologic sections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; (254) 75-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bedi A, Maak T, Walsh C. et al. Cytokines in rotator cuff degeneration and repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21 (02) 218-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hashimoto T, Nobuhara K, Hamada T. Pathologic evidence of degeneration as a primary cause of rotator cuff tear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (415) 111-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Moor BK, Bouaicha S, Rothenfluh DA, Sukthankar A, Gerber C. Is there an association between the individual anatomy of the scapula and the development of rotator cuff tears or osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint?: A radiological study of the critical shoulder angle. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (07) 935-941
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gomide LC, Carmo TC, Bergo GHM, Oliveira GA, Macedo IS. Associação entre o ângulo crítico do ombro e lesão do manguito rotador: um estudo epidemiológico retrospectivo. Rev Bras Ortop 2017; 52 (04) 423-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gerber C, Snedeker JG, Baumgartner D, Viehöfer AF. Supraspinatus tendon load during abduction is dependent on the size of the critical shoulder angle: A biomechanical analysis. J Orthop Res 2014; 32 (07) 952-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chalmers PN, Salazar D, Steger-May K, Chamberlain AM, Yamaguchi K, Keener JD. Does the critical shoulder angle correlate with rotator cuff tear progression?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (06) 1608-1617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bouaicha S, Ehrmann C, Slankamenac K, Regan WD, Moor BK. Comparison of the critical shoulder angle in radiographs and computed tomography. Skeletal Radiol 2014; 43 (08) 1053-1056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Spiegl UJ, Horan MP, Smith SW, Ho CP, Millett PJ. The critical shoulder angle is associated with rotator cuff tears and shoulder osteoarthritis and is better assessed with radiographs over MRI. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (07) 2244-2251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nikooyan AA, Veeger HE, Westerhoff P, Graichen F, Bergmann G, van der Helm FC. Validation of the Delft Shoulder and Elbow Model using in-vivo glenohumeral joint contact forces. J Biomech 2010; 43 (15) 3007-3014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Favre P, Snedeker JG, Gerber C. Numerical modelling of the shoulder for clinical applications. Philos Transact A Math Phys. Eng Sci 2009; 367 (1895): 2095-2118
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Oizumi N, Tadano S, Narita Y, Suenaga N, Iwasaki N, Minami A. Numerical analysis of cooperative abduction muscle forces in a human shoulder joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006; 15 (03) 331-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lippitt S, Matsen F. Mechanisms of glenohumeral joint stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; (291) 20-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar