BACKGROUND: The literature contains only a few studies investigating the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostics of degenerative cartilage diseases. Studies on MRI diagnostics of the cartilage using field strengths of 3-Tesla demonstrate promising results. To assess the value of 3-Tesla MRI for decision making regarding conservative or operative treatment possibilities, this study focused on patients with degenerative cartilage diseases. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with chronic knee pain, a minimum age of 40 years, a negative history of trauma, and at least grade II degenerative cartilage disease were included. Cartilage abnormalities detected at preoperative 3-Tesla MRI (axial/koronar/sagittal PD-TSE-SPAIR, axial/sagittal 3D-T1-FFE, axial T2-FFE; Intera 3.0T, Philips Medical Systems) were classified (grades I-IV) and compared with arthroscopic findings. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent (70/192) of the examined cartilage surfaces demonstrated no agreement between MRI and arthroscopic grading. In most of these cases, grades II and III cartilage lesions were confounded with each other. Regarding the positive predictive values, the probability that a positive finding in MRI would be exactly confirmed by arthroscopy was 39-72%. In contrast, specificities and negative predictive values of different grades of cartilage diseases were 85-95%. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the high specificities and negative predictive values, 3-Tesla MRI is a reliable method for excluding even slight cartilage degeneration. In summary, in degenerative cartilage diseases, 3-Tesla MRI is a supportive, noninvasive method for clinical decision making regarding conservative or operative treatment possibilities. However, the value of diagnostic arthroscopy for a definitive assessment of the articular surfaces and for therapeutic planning currently cannot be replaced by 3-Tesla MRI. This applies especially to treatment options in which a differentiation between grade II and III cartilage lesions is of interest.
BACKGROUND: The literature contains only a few studies investigating the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostics of degenerative cartilage diseases. Studies on MRI diagnostics of the cartilage using field strengths of 3-Tesla demonstrate promising results. To assess the value of 3-Tesla MRI for decision making regarding conservative or operative treatment possibilities, this study focused on patients with degenerative cartilage diseases. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with chronic knee pain, a minimum age of 40 years, a negative history of trauma, and at least grade II degenerative cartilage disease were included. Cartilage abnormalities detected at preoperative 3-Tesla MRI (axial/koronar/sagittal PD-TSE-SPAIR, axial/sagittal 3D-T1-FFE, axial T2-FFE; Intera 3.0T, Philips Medical Systems) were classified (grades I-IV) and compared with arthroscopic findings. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent (70/192) of the examined cartilage surfaces demonstrated no agreement between MRI and arthroscopic grading. In most of these cases, grades II and III cartilage lesions were confounded with each other. Regarding the positive predictive values, the probability that a positive finding in MRI would be exactly confirmed by arthroscopy was 39-72%. In contrast, specificities and negative predictive values of different grades of cartilage diseases were 85-95%. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the high specificities and negative predictive values, 3-Tesla MRI is a reliable method for excluding even slight cartilage degeneration. In summary, in degenerative cartilage diseases, 3-Tesla MRI is a supportive, noninvasive method for clinical decision making regarding conservative or operative treatment possibilities. However, the value of diagnostic arthroscopy for a definitive assessment of the articular surfaces and for therapeutic planning currently cannot be replaced by 3-Tesla MRI. This applies especially to treatment options in which a differentiation between grade II and III cartilage lesions is of interest.
Authors: Y Kawahara; M Uetani; N Nakahara; Y Doiguchi; M Nishiguchi; S Futagawa; Y Kinoshita; K Hayashi Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Lars Victor von Engelhardt; Clayton N Kraft; Peter H Pennekamp; Hans Heinz Schild; Alfred Schmitz; Marcus von Falkenhausen Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: B Friemert; Y Oberländer; W Schwarz; H J Häberle; W Bähren; H Gerngross; B Danz Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2003-08-05 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Toby O Smith; Benjamin T Drew; Andoni P Toms; Simon T Donell; Caroline B Hing Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Lars V von Engelhardt; Matthias Lahner; André Klussmann; Bertil Bouillon; Andreas Dàvid; Patrick Haage; Thomas K Lichtinger Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Sandro Kohl; Simon Meier; Sufian S Ahmad; Harald Bonel; Aristomenis K Exadaktylos; Anna Krismer; Dimitrios Stergios Evangelopoulos Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Max Kistler; Hannes Köhler; Jan Theopold; Ines Gockel; Andreas Roth; Pierre Hepp; Georg Osterhoff Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 4.379