FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4289526059> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4289526059 endingPage "2224" @default.
• W4289526059 startingPage "2217" @default.
• W4289526059 abstract "Background To determine whether the addition of 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard MRI sequences is comparable to 3D computed tomographic (CT) scan evaluation of glenoid and humeral bone loss in glenohumeral instability. Methods Eighteen patients who presented with glenohumeral instability were prospectively enrolled and received both MRI and CT within 1 week of each other. The MRI included an additional sequence (volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) that underwent postprocessing for reformations. The addition of a VIBE protocol, on average, is an additional 4-4.5 minutes in the scanner. CT data also underwent 3D postprocessing, and therefore each patient had 4 imaging modalities (2D CT, 2D MRI, 3D CT reformats, and 3D MRI reformats). Each sequence underwent the following measurements from 2 separate reviewers: glenoid defect, glenoid defect percentage, humeral defect, humeral defect percentage, and evaluation of glenoid track and version. Paired t tests were used to assess differences between imaging modalities and χ2 for glenoid track. Intra- and interobserver reliability were evaluated. Bland-Altman tests were also performed to assess the agreement between CT and MRI. In addition, we determined the cost of each imaging modality at our institution. Results 3D MRI measurements for glenoid and humeral bone loss measurements were comparable to 3D CT (Table 1). There were no significant differences for glenoid defect size and percentage, or humeral defect size and percentage (P > .05) (Table 2). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated strong agreement, with small measurement errors for 3D CT and 3D MRI percentage glenoid bone loss. There was also no difference in evaluation for determining on vs. off track between any of the imaging modalities. Inter- and intrarater reliability was good to excellent for all CT and MRI measurements (r ≥ 0.7). Conclusion 3D MRI measurements for bone loss in glenohumeral instability through use of VIBE sequence were equivalent to 3D CT. At our institution, undergoing MRI with 3D reconstruction was 1.67 times cheaper than MRI and CT with 3D reconstructions. 3D MRI may be a useful adjuvant to standard MRI sequences to allow concurrent soft tissue and accurate assessment of glenoid and humeral bone loss in glenohumeral instability. To determine whether the addition of 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard MRI sequences is comparable to 3D computed tomographic (CT) scan evaluation of glenoid and humeral bone loss in glenohumeral instability. Eighteen patients who presented with glenohumeral instability were prospectively enrolled and received both MRI and CT within 1 week of each other. The MRI included an additional sequence (volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) that underwent postprocessing for reformations. The addition of a VIBE protocol, on average, is an additional 4-4.5 minutes in the scanner. CT data also underwent 3D postprocessing, and therefore each patient had 4 imaging modalities (2D CT, 2D MRI, 3D CT reformats, and 3D MRI reformats). Each sequence underwent the following measurements from 2 separate reviewers: glenoid defect, glenoid defect percentage, humeral defect, humeral defect percentage, and evaluation of glenoid track and version. Paired t tests were used to assess differences between imaging modalities and χ2 for glenoid track. Intra- and interobserver reliability were evaluated. Bland-Altman tests were also performed to assess the agreement between CT and MRI. In addition, we determined the cost of each imaging modality at our institution. 3D MRI measurements for glenoid and humeral bone loss measurements were comparable to 3D CT (Table 1). There were no significant differences for glenoid defect size and percentage, or humeral defect size and percentage (P > .05) (Table 2). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated strong agreement, with small measurement errors for 3D CT and 3D MRI percentage glenoid bone loss. There was also no difference in evaluation for determining on vs. off track between any of the imaging modalities. Inter- and intrarater reliability was good to excellent for all CT and MRI measurements (r ≥ 0.7). 3D MRI measurements for bone loss in glenohumeral instability through use of VIBE sequence were equivalent to 3D CT. At our institution, undergoing MRI with 3D reconstruction was 1.67 times cheaper than MRI and CT with 3D reconstructions. 3D MRI may be a useful adjuvant to standard MRI sequences to allow concurrent soft tissue and accurate assessment of glenoid and humeral bone loss in glenohumeral instability." @default.
• W4289526059 created "2022-08-03" @default.
• W4289526059 creator A5021783688 @default.
• W4289526059 creator A5038488725 @default.
• W4289526059 creator A5059443591 @default.
• W4289526059 creator A5086743367 @default.
• W4289526059 creator A5086941038 @default.
• W4289526059 date "2022-11-01" @default.
• W4289526059 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W4289526059 title "Comparison of computed tomography and 3D magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating glenohumeral instability bone loss" @default.
• W4289526059 cites W1530405867 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W1891715101 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W1966913420 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W1974650676 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W1976980674 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W1984371055 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W1986041931 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W1994626394 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2002126952 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2017345741 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2047969092 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2064025031 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2087566286 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2117184169 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2122831384 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2140686011 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2147899020 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2148760477 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2149866887 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2162728003 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2172470105 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2204276171 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2327037637 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2346551920 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2498431159 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2551914333 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2562221324 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2601611065 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2610430919 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2884862296 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W2899252492 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W3044195164 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W3138408629 @default.
• W4289526059 cites W4237345897 @default.
• W4289526059 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.06.015" @default.
• W4289526059 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35931334" @default.
• W4289526059 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4289526059 type Work @default.
• W4289526059 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W4289526059 countsByYear W42895260592022 @default.
• W4289526059 countsByYear W42895260592023 @default.
• W4289526059 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4289526059 hasAuthorship W4289526059A5021783688 @default.
• W4289526059 hasAuthorship W4289526059A5038488725 @default.
• W4289526059 hasAuthorship W4289526059A5059443591 @default.
• W4289526059 hasAuthorship W4289526059A5086743367 @default.
• W4289526059 hasAuthorship W4289526059A5086941038 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConcept C143409427 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConcept C544519230 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConceptScore W4289526059C126838900 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConceptScore W4289526059C143409427 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConceptScore W4289526059C2989005 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConceptScore W4289526059C544519230 @default.
• W4289526059 hasConceptScore W4289526059C71924100 @default.
• W4289526059 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W4289526059 hasLocation W42895260591 @default.
• W4289526059 hasLocation W42895260592 @default.
• W4289526059 hasOpenAccess W4289526059 @default.
• W4289526059 hasPrimaryLocation W42895260591 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W1964496343 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W2049214470 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W2077923683 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W2090631111 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W2144107049 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W2889577114 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W2902148150 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W29080787 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W1972217857 @default.
• W4289526059 hasRelatedWork W2182176002 @default.
• W4289526059 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W4289526059 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4289526059 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4289526059 workType "article" @default.