Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging findings in adhesive capsulitis: which quantitative findings are most valuable?

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in adhesive capsulitis (AC) and determine the most valuable MRI finding in diagnosis using easily applied quantitative methods. METHODS: Shoulder MRI was performed on 193 patients who were diagnosed with AC by clinical examination and 116 controls. Axillary pouch thickness (APT), superior and inferior glenohumeral ligament (SGHL and IGHL) thickness, coracohumeral ligament (CHL) thickness, fluid increase and soft-tissue thickness in the rotator interval (RI), and increases in the fluid and signal in the localization of biceps tendon attachment were evaluated. MRI examinations were assessed by three radiologists blinded to the clinical findings of the patients, and the results were obtained based on consensus and records. RESULTS: There were 119 women and 74 men in the AC group and 80 women and 36 men in the control group. IGHL, SGHL, RI, and CHL thicknesses were measured thicker in AC patients than in the control group. When IGHL=4, RI=3.6, SGHL=2.0, CHL=4.6-mm cutoff, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) values were 0.700, 0.922, 0.972, and 0.783, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results obtained in this study, IGHL=4 mm, RI=3.6 mm, SGHL=2.0 mm, and CHL=4.6 mm can support the diagnosis of AC. Using the quantitative values in diagnosis can provide objective criteria and prevent variability among interpreters.

Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incidentally detected hyperechoic liver lesions: comparison of two modalities in terms of detection, diagnosis, and morphological features.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate and compare the ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of incidentally detected hyperechoic focal liver lesions. METHODS: Seventy-four patients (29 males and 45 females) who had undergone a B-mode ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examination were included in this study. A total of 91 hyperechoic lesions detected on ultrasonography were evaluated. The ultrasonography features of these hyperechoic lesions were recorded, and the results were compared with those acquired from contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. The results were compared statistically using the Shapiro-Wilk, McNemar, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: A corresponding lesion was found on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in 72 of the 91 (79.1%) hyperechoic lesions detected on ultrasonography. Forty-one (56.9%) of the magnetic resonance imaging-defined lesions were typical hemangiomas, while 10 (13.9%) were focal steatosis areas and 4 (5.6%) were diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma. In contrast, 6 lesions (8.3%) were diagnosed as simple hepatic cysts, 4 (5.6%) as sclerosing hemangioma, 2 (2.8%) as thrombosed hemangioma, 1 (1.4%) as focal nodular hyperplasia, 1 (1.4%) as hamartoma, 2 (2.8%) as hydatid cysts, and 1 (1.4%) as hepatic lipoma. No statistically significant differences were found between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in terms of the segmental classification of the true positive lesions based on contour structures and lesion area measurements (p=0.558, p=0.375, and p=0.636, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Incidentally detected hyperechoic zones may not necessarily be detected on magnetic resonance imaging. This may be secondary to focal hepatic steatosis or false interpretation of the radiologist. Lesions requiring therapy must be considered in the differential diagnosis.

Evaluation of the olfactory bulb volume and morphology in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: can differences create predisposition to anosmia?

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether the volume and morphology of the olfactory bulb are effective in the occurrence of anosmia in patients after COVID-19 infection. METHODS: The olfactory bulbus volume was calculated by examining the brain magnetic resonance imaging of cases with positive (+) COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test with and without anosmia. Evaluated magnetic resonance imaging images were the scans of patients before they were infected with COVID-19. The olfactory bulbus and olfactory nerve morphology of these patients were examined. The brain magnetic resonance imaging of 59 patients with anosmia and 64 controls without anosmia was evaluated. The olfactory bulb volumes of both groups were calculated. The olfactory bulb morphology and olfactory nerve types were examined and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The left and right olfactory bulb volumes were calculated for the anosmia group and control group as 47.8±15/49.3±14.3 and 50.5±9.9/50.9±9.6, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. When the olfactory bulb morphology was compared between the two groups, it was observed that types D and R were dominant in the anosmia group (p<0.05). Concerning olfactory nerve morphology, type N was significantly more common in the control group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, the olfactory bulb volume does not affect the development of anosmia after COVID-19. However, it is striking that the bulb morphology significantly differs between the patients with and without anosmia. It is clear that the evaluation of COVID-19-associated smell disorders requires studies with a larger number of patients and a clinicoradiological approach.

Evaluation of the olfactory bulb volume and morphology in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: can differences create predisposition to anosmia?

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether the volume and morphology of the olfactory bulb are effective in the occurrence of anosmia in patients after COVID-19 infection. METHODS: The olfactory bulbus volume was calculated by examining the brain magnetic resonance imaging of cases with positive (+) COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test with and without anosmia. Evaluated magnetic resonance imaging images were the scans of patients before they were infected with COVID-19. The olfactory bulbus and olfactory nerve morphology of these patients were examined. The brain magnetic resonance imaging of 59 patients with anosmia and 64 controls without anosmia was evaluated. The olfactory bulb volumes of both groups were calculated. The olfactory bulb morphology and olfactory nerve types were examined and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The left and right olfactory bulb volumes were calculated for the anosmia group and control group as 47.8±15/49.3±14.3 and 50.5±9.9/50.9±9.6, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. When the olfactory bulb morphology was compared between the two groups, it was observed that types D and R were dominant in the anosmia group (p<0.05). Concerning olfactory nerve morphology, type N was significantly more common in the control group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, the olfactory bulb volume does not affect the development of anosmia after COVID-19. However, it is striking that the bulb morphology significantly differs between the patients with and without anosmia. It is clear that the evaluation of COVID-19-associated smell disorders requires studies with a larger number of patients and a clinicoradiological approach.