Incidence of gadolinium or fluid signal within surgically proven glenoid labral tears at MR arthrography
- 355 Downloads
To determine how often patients with surgically proven labral tears have labral signal on shoulder MR arthrography (MRA) that is not equal to gadolinium or fluid on T1- and T2-weighted images, respectively.
Materials and methods
Consecutive patients with surgical repair of a SLAP or Bankart labral tear within 95 days of an MRA were included. Using cartilage signal as an internal reference, two musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists retrospectively categorized labral signal as T1-hyperintense, T1-gadolinium, T2-hyperintense, or T2-fluid. In patients without T1-gadolinium or T2-fluid labral signal, secondary findings such as the orientation, extent, shape, and width of the abnormal signal was recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s test and ANOVA.
Sixty-one labral tears (36 SLAP and 25 Bankart) in 54 patients (mean age, 30.7; F:M 8:46) met the inclusion criteria. In 67% and 76% of SLAP and Bankart labral tears, T1-gadolinium signal was present (p = 0.43). T2-fluid signal was present in 50% and 92% of these same labral tears (p = 0.001). The absence of T1-gadolinium or T2-fluid signal was more common in SLAP tears (33%) compared to Bankart tears (8%) (p = 0.02). In the SLAP cases, at least two secondary findings of a SLAP tear were present in 92% (11/12).
Lack of surfacing T1-gadolinium or T2-fluid labral signal is unusual in Bankart tears but relatively common in SLAP tears. However, a SLAP tear was diagnosed in 92% of these 12 cases when two secondary findings were present.
KeywordsLabrum MRI MR arthrography SLAP Bankart
The data for this project originated from and was provided by the University of Virginia.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
No grants or conflicts of interest to disclose.
- 17.De Smet AA, Horak DM, Davis KW, Choi JJ. Intensity of signal contacting meniscal surface in recurrent tears on MR arthrography compared with that of contrast material. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(6):W565–8.Google Scholar