Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Detection of the glenoid bare spot by non-arthrographic MR imaging, conventional MR arthrography, and 3D high-resolution T1-weighted VIBE MR arthrography: comparison with CT arthrography

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-arthrographic MR imaging, conventional MR arthrography, and 3D T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) MR arthrography sequences as compared with a CT arthrography in the diagnosis of glenoid bare spot.

Methods

A retrospective study of 216 patients who underwent non-arthrographic MR imaging, conventional MR arthrography, VIBE MRI arthrography, and CT arthrogram between January 2011 and March 2022 was conducted. The diagnostic accuracy of non-arthrographic MR imaging, direct MR arthrography, and VIBE MRI arthrography in the detection of glenoid bare spot was compared with that of CT arthrography. All studies were reviewed by 2 MSK radiologists. Interobserver agreement for MR imaging and MR arthrographic findings was calculated.

Results

Sixteen of 216 patients were excluded. Twenty-three of 200 shoulders had glenoid bare spot on CT arthrographic images. The glenoid bare spot was detected in 11 (47.8%) and 7 (30.4%) patients on conventional non-arthrographic MR images and in 18 (78.3%) and 16 (69.6%) patients on conventional MR arthrograms by observers 1 and 2, respectively. Both observers separately described the bare spot in 22 of 23 patients (95.7%) on 3D volumetric MR arthrograms. Interobserver variabilities were fair agreement for conventional non-arthrographic MR imaging (κ = 0.35, p < 0.05), moderate agreement for conventional MR arthrogram (κ = 0.50, p < 0.05), and near-perfect agreement for 3D volumetric MR arthrogram reading (κ = 0.87, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

A 3D high-resolution T1-weighted VIBE MR arthrography sequence may yield diagnostic performance that is comparable with that of CT arthrography in the diagnosis of glenoid bare spot.

Key Points

•Glenoid bare spot should not be misdiagnosed as a transchondral defect of the glenoid surface by radiologists.

•A 3D high-resolution T1-weighted VIBE MR arthrography sequence may be used as a high-sensitivity imaging technique in the diagnosis of glenoid bare spot.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

3D:

Three-dimensional

CT:

Computed tomography

MR:

Magnetic resonance

VIBE:

Volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination

References

  1. Dunham KS, Bencardino JT, Rokito AS (2012) Anatomic variants and pitfalls of the labrum, glenoid cartilage, and glenohumeral ligaments. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 20:213–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Burkhart SS, Debeer JF, Tehrany AM, Parten PM (2002) Quantifying glenoid bone loss arthroscopically in shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 18(5):488–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kralinger F, Aigner F, Longato S, Rieger M, Wambacher M (2006) Is the bare spot a consistent landmark for shoulder arthroscopy? A study of 20 embalmed glenoids with 3-dimensional computed tomographic reconstruction. Arthroscopy 22:428–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chuang TY, Adams CR, Burkhart SS (2008) Use of preoperative three-dimensional computed tomography to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 24:376–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McCarty LP 3rd, Cole BJ (2005) Nonarthroplasty treatment of glenohumeral cartilage lesions. Arthroscopy 21:1131–1142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Graichen H, Jakob J, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Englmeier KH, Reiser M, Eckstein F (2003) Validation of cartilage volume and thickness measurements in the human shoulder with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 11:475–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ogul H, Taydas O, Sakci Z, Altinsoy HB, Kantarci M (2021) Posterior shoulder labrocapsular structures in all aspects; 3D volumetric MR arthrography study. Br J Radiol 94:20201230

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ogul H, Tas N, Tuncer K et al (2019) 3D volumetric MR arthrographic assessment of shoulder joint capacity in patients with primary adhesive capsulitis. Br J Radiol 92:20180496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ogul H, Karaca L, Can CE et al (2014) Anatomy, variants, and pathologies of the superior glenohumeral ligament: magnetic resonance imaging with three-dimensional volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination sequence and conventional magnetic resonance arthrography. Korean J Radiol 15:508–522

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Yu JS, Greenway G, Resnick D (1998) Osteochondral defect of the glenoid fossa: cross-sectional imaging features. Radiology 206:35–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramos MRF, Hidalgo PF, Fagundes D, San YAC (2020) Bare spot location in glenoid cavity: comparison between arthroscopy and CT scan. Acta Ortop Bras 28:243–246

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ly JQ, Bui-Mansfield LT, Kline MJ, DeBerardino TM, Taylor DC (2004) Bare area of the glenoid: magnetic resonance appearance with arthroscopic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:229–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aigner F, Longato S, Fritsch H, Kralinger F (2004) Anatomical considerations regarding the “bare spot” of the glenoid cavity. Surg Radiol Anat 26(4):308–311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kho J, Kholinne E, Lim S et al (2019) Arthroscopic bare spot method underestimates true bone defect in bony Bankart lesion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139:1269–1275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim HK, Emery KH, Salisbury SR (2010) Bare spot of the glenoid fossa in children: incidence and MRI features. Pediatr Radiol 40:1190–1196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Djebbar S, Rosenberg ZS, Fitzgerald Alaia E, Agten C, Zember J, Rossi I (2018) Imaging features of glenoid bare spot in a pediatric population. Skeletal Radiol 47:45–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Resnick D, Kang HS (2007) Shoulder. In: Resnick D, Kang HS (eds) Internal derangements of joints, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 713–1122

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kim HK (2009) Bare spot: a normal variant on shoulder MR arthrography. Pediatr Radiol 39:1124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alashkham A, Alraddadi A, Soames R (2017) Bare spot and tubercle of Assaki. JSES Open Access 1:141–143

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. De Maeseneer M, Pouliart N, Boulet C et al (2012) A bare area of the glenoid misdiagnosed as a cartilage ulceration. JBR-BTR 95:22–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Warner JJ, Bowen MK, Deng XH, Hannafin JA, Arnoczky SP, Warren RF (1998) Articular contact patterns of the normal glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:381–388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jung HG, Kim NR, Jeon JY et al (2018) CT arthrography visualizes tissue growth of osteochondral defects of the talus after microfracture. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:2123–2130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Medical Faculty, Duzce University, Arapçiftliği MahallesiNumara 10, 2901, Sokak, Duzce, Turkey

    Mehmet Ali Ozel & Hayri Ogul

  2. Ankara Bayindir Private Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Ali Koksal

  3. Department of Radiology, Vocational School of Health Services, Atilim University, Ankara, Turkey

    Ali Koksal

  4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Medical Faculty, Altinbas University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Kose & Kutsi Tuncer

  5. Department of Radiology, Medical Faculty, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Suat Eren & Mecit Kantarci

  6. Department of Radiology, Medical Faculty, Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey

    Mecit Kantarci

Authors
  1. Mehmet Ali Ozel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hayri Ogul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Koksal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mehmet Kose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kutsi Tuncer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Suat Eren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mecit Kantarci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hayri Ogul.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hayri Ogul.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

•retrospective

•cross-sectional

•performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozel, M.A., Ogul, H., Koksal, A. et al. Detection of the glenoid bare spot by non-arthrographic MR imaging, conventional MR arthrography, and 3D high-resolution T1-weighted VIBE MR arthrography: comparison with CT arthrography. Eur Radiol 33, 3276–3285 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09443-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09443-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation