Can magnetic resonance imaging accurately and reliably measure humeral cortical thickness?

Peter N Chalmers; Garrett V Christensen; Hiroaki Ishikawa; Heath B Henninger; Eugene G Kholmovski; Megan Mills; Robert Z Tashjian

doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2021.10.010

Can magnetic resonance imaging accurately and reliably measure humeral cortical thickness?

JSES Int. 2021 Dec 11;6(2):297-304. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2021.10.010. eCollection 2022 Mar.

Authors

Peter N Chalmers¹, Garrett V Christensen¹, Hiroaki Ishikawa¹, Heath B Henninger¹, Eugene G Kholmovski², Megan Mills², Robert Z Tashjian¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
² Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Abstract

Background: Historically, imaging osseous detail in three dimensions required a computed tomography (CT) scan with ionizing radiation that poorly visualizes the soft tissues. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and reliability of ultrashort echo time (UTE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in measuring humeral cortical thickness and cancellous density as compared with CT.

Methods: This was a comparative radiographic study in nine cadavers, each of which underwent CT and UTE MRI. On images aligned to the center of the humeral shaft, anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral humeral cortical thickness was measured 5, 10, and 15 cm distal to the top of the head. Cancellous density was measured as signal within a 1-cm diameter region of interest in the center of the head, the subtuberosity head, the subarticular head, and the subarticular glenoid vault. Glenoid cortical thickness was measured at the center of the glenoid. Cortical measurements were compared using mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, paired Student's t-tests, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). We compared cancellous measurements using Pearson's correlation coefficients. For all measurements, we calculated interobserver and intraobserver reliability using ICCs with 0.75 as the lower limit for acceptability.

Results: With regard to accuracy, for humeral cortical thickness measurements, there were no significant differences between MRI and CT measures, and ICCs were >0.75. The glenoid cortical thickness ICC was <0.75. There was no significant correlation between the cancellous signal on MRI and on CT in any region. For both MRI and CT, interobserver reliability and intraobserver reliability were acceptable (ie, >0.75) for almost all humeral cortical thickness measures.

Conclusion: UTE MRI can reliably and accurately measure humeral cortical thickness, but cannot accurately measure cancellous density or accurately and reliably measure glenoid cortical thickness.

Keywords: Computed tomography; Cortical thickness; Magnetic resonance imaging; Osteoporosis; Ultra-short time-echo.

Abstract

Grants and funding