Literature DB >> 10879716

MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0.2 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) imaging.

R Loew1, K F Kreitner, M Runkel, J Zoellner, M Thelen.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the image quality, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of an open low-field MR system (0.2 T) with a standard high-field MR system (1.5 T) after arthrography of the shoulder. Thirty-eight patients either with suspected chronic instability (n = 12) or rotator cuff abnormalities (n = 26) were examined. Intra-articular injection of diluted Gd-DTPA was followed in randomized order either first by imaging on an open 0.2-T system or on a 1.5-T system. The image material was evaluated independently by two radiologists in a blinded fashion with respect to overall image quality and the detection of rotator cuff as well as capsular and labral abnormalities. Surgical correlation was available in 27 (71%) of 38 patients. For both systems, sensitivity and specificity for rotator cuff tears were 100% each, and for labrum pathologies, these values were 100 and 93%, respectively. The agreement for detection of labral pathologies between low-field and high-field examinations was good (kappa = 0.69, kappa = 0.61). For the detection of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff, the agreement between the low-field and high-field MR examinations was very good and significant (kappa = 0.94, kappa = 1, p < 0.001). Overall image quality was rated good in 17 (45%) and fair in 21 (55%) of 38 cases on the 0.2-T MR system, and good in 32 (84%) and fair in 6 (16%) of 38 cases on the 1.5-T system. Motion artifacts were considered low in 24 (63%) and moderate in 14 (37%) of 38 cases for the 0.2-T system and low in 34 (89%) and moderate in 4 (11%) for 1.5-T system. Based on our results, low-field MR compares favorably to high-field MR in the detection of major abnormalities of the glenohumeral joint, at least when MR arthrography is used. Disadvantages are the duration of the examination and thus the risk of reduced image quality caused by motion artifacts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10879716     DOI: 10.1007/s003300051050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  32 in total

1.  MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison with conventional MR imaging.

Authors:  B Flannigan; S Kursunoglu-Brahme; S Snyder; R Karzel; W Del Pizzo; D Resnick
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Rotator cuff tendon tears: evaluation with fat-suppressed MR imaging with arthroscopic correlation in 100 patients.

Authors:  S F Quinn; R C Sheley; T A Demlow; J Szumowski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Effusion criteria and clinical importance of glenohumeral joint fluid: MR imaging evaluation.

Authors:  M E Schweitzer; M J Magbalon; J M Fenlin; B G Frieman; S Ehrlich; R E Epstein
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Comparison of STIR and spin-echo MR imaging at 1.5 T in 45 suspected extremity tumors: lesion conspicuity and extent.

Authors:  W P Shuman; R M Patten; R L Baron; R M Liddell; E U Conrad; M L Richardson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  [The diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic relevance of CT arthrography and MR arthrography of the shoulder].

Authors:  G Bachmann; T Bauer; I Jürgensen; J Schwab; B Weimar; W S Rau
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  1998-02

6.  MR findings in asymptomatic shoulders: a blind analysis using symptomatic shoulders as controls.

Authors:  V Chandnani; C Ho; J Gerharter; C Neumann; S Kursunoglu-Brahme; D J Sartoris; D Resnick
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  1992 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.605

7.  Rotator cuff: evaluation with fat-suppressed MR arthrography.

Authors:  W E Palmer; J H Brown; D I Rosenthal
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Magnetic resonance diagnosis of the anterior labrum and capsule. Effect of field strength on efficacy.

Authors:  K H Allmann; O Walter; J Laubenberger; M Uhl; C H Buitrago-Tellez; N Biebow; M Langer
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  MR arthrography of the shoulder with gadopentetate dimeglumine: influence of concentration, iodinated contrast material, and time on signal intensity.

Authors:  L Kopka; M Funke; U Fischer; D Keating; J Oestmann; E Grabbe
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  MR imaging of the rotator cuff: peritendinous and bone abnormalities in an asymptomatic population.

Authors:  S D Needell; M B Zlatkin; J S Sher; B J Murphy; J W Uribe
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  10 in total

1.  Freehand direct arthrography of the shoulder using near real-time guidance in an open 1.0-T MRI scanner.

Authors:  Christian Wybranski; Ilya Adamchic; Friedrich-Wilhelm Röhl; Jens Ricke; Frank Fischbach; Katharina Fischbach
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2016-10-22       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  MRI-Arthroscopic Correlation in Rotator Cuff Tendon Pathologies; A Comparison between Various Centers.

Authors:  Sepideh Sefidbakht; Omid Reza Momenzadeh; Sakineh Dehghani; Hadi Gerami
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2016-04

Review 3.  [Imaging of the musculoskeletal system using low-field magnetic resonance imaging].

Authors:  Tobias Pogarell; Matthias S May; Armin M Nagel; Michael Uder; Rafael Heiss
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 4.  Detecting Rotator Cuff Tears: A Network Meta-analysis of 144 Diagnostic Studies.

Authors:  Fanxiao Liu; Jinlei Dong; Wun-Jer Shen; Qinglin Kang; Dongsheng Zhou; Fei Xiong
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-02-05

5.  Mass screening for retrocochlear disorders: low-field-strength (0.2-T) versus high-field-strength (1.5-T) MR imaging.

Authors:  Frédérique Dubrulle; Julia Delomez; Alireza Kiaei; Pierre Berger; Christophe Vincent; François-Michel M Vaneecloo; Laurent Lemaitre
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2002 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 6.  Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography, MRI and MR arthrography in the characterisation of rotator cuff disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jean-Sébastien Roy; Caroline Braën; Jean Leblond; François Desmeules; Clermont E Dionne; Joy C MacDermid; Nathalie J Bureau; Pierre Frémont
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 7.  Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered.

Authors:  Mário Lenza; Rachelle Buchbinder; Yemisi Takwoingi; Renea V Johnston; Nigel Ca Hanchard; Flávio Faloppa
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-09-24

8.  Analysis of Low-Field MRI Scanners for Evaluation of Shoulder Pathology Based on Arthroscopy.

Authors:  Christopher S Lee; Shane M Davis; Claire McGroder; Shalen Kouk; Ryan M Sung; William B Stetson; Scott E Powell
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2014-07-02

9.  Analysis of Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners for Evaluation of Knee Pathology Based on Arthroscopy.

Authors:  Christopher S Lee; Shane M Davis; Claire McGroder; William B Stetson; Scott E Powell
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2013-12-05

10.  The value of the simplified RAMRIS-5 in early RA patients under methotrexate therapy using high-field MRI.

Authors:  Miriam Frenken; Christoph Schleich; Ralph Brinks; Daniel Benjamin Abrar; Christine Goertz; Matthias Schneider; Benedikt Ostendorf; Philipp Sewerin
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 5.156

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.