Long Head Biceps Tendon Angle Shows the Highest Sensitivity and Long Head Biceps Tendon-Groove Distance the Highest Specificity for the Diagnosis of Biceps Pulley Lesions Using Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

利用常规磁共振成像诊断肱二头肌滑车损伤时,肱二头肌长头肌腱角具有最高的敏感性,而肱二头肌长头肌腱-滑车沟距离具有最高的特异性。

阅读:2

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic performance and inter-rater agreement for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signs of long head biceps tendon (LHBT) instability and overall, using conventional MRI for the diagnosis of biceps pulley lesions. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, conventional MRIs were reviewed by 5 assessors for the presence or absence of biceps pulley lesions and 6 specific MRI signs. Diagnostic performance of pulley lesion and sign detection using MRI was tested using arthroscopy as the reference standard. Interobserver agreement was measured with Kappa statistics and diagnostic performance with sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values overall and for radiologists and surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 60 MRIs, 30 with biceps pully lesions and 30 without, were included. Overall, diagnostic performance metrics for MRI included a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 79%, positive predictive value of 80%, and negative predictive value of 80%. Interobserver reliability analysis revealed moderate agreement overall, with a global kappa value of 0.59. LHBT angle showed the highest sensitivity (84%) and LHBT-groove distance showed the greatest specificity (98%). Both radiologists and surgeons reported similar diagnostic accuracy through MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, conventional MRI had an acceptable diagnostic performance, with sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of approximately 80%. Among the evaluated signs, the LHBT angle had the highest sensitivity, whereas the LHBT-groove distance showed the greatest specificity. Interobserver reliability was moderate overall, though some observer pairs achieved substantial agreement. However, there was variability across diagnostic signs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。