4.7 Article

Superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears: Evaluation of three MR signs on T2-weighted images

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 215, Issue 3, Pages 841-845

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.215.3.r00jn26841

Keywords

shoulder, abnormalities; shoulder, injuries; shoulder, MR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of three magnetic resonance (MR) imaging signs for the diagnosis of superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 23 consecutive patients with a type 2, 3, or 4 SLAP tear at arthroscopy and 31 age-matched control patients with an arthroscopically normal or type 1 SLAP lesion. The superior labrum was evaluated oh MR images for high signal intensity extending to the articular surface in the posterior third of the labrum, an irregular or laterally curved area of high signal intensity, or two,high-signal-intensity lines. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of posterior high signal intensity for a type 2, 3, or 4 SLAP tear were 48%, 94%, and 74%, respectively, for observer 1 and 61%, 81%, and 72%, respectively, for observer 2. For laterally curved area of high signal intensity, these values were 65%, 84%, and 76%, respectively, and 56%, 84%,:and 72%, respectively. For two high-signal-intensity lines, these values were 17%, 94%, and 61%, respectively, and 13%, 94%, and 59%, respectively. For the presence of either posterior or laterally curved high signal intensity, the sensitivity was 65% for both observers, whereas the specificity was 84% for observer 1 and 74% for observer 2. The kappa values for interobserver agreement were 0.60 for posterior high signal intensity and 0.58 for laterally curved high signal intensity. CONCLUSION: Laterally curved and posterior high signal intensities are:specific signs for distinguishing a SLAP tear from a normal-variant superior sublabral recess.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available