| Literature DB >> 19921201 |
Edwin H G Oei1, Ingrid M Koster, Jan-Hein J Hensen, Simone S Boks, Harry P A Wagemakers, Bart W Koes, Dammis Vroegindeweij, Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra, M G Myriam Hunink.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate meniscal status change on follow-up MRI after 1 year, prognostic factors and association with clinical outcome in patients with conservatively treated knee injury.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19921201 PMCID: PMC2850528 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1648-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Parameters of the MR imaging protocol
| Sequence | Plane of imaging | Repetition time (ms) | Echo time (ms) | Section thickness (mm) | Matrix | Field of view (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1-weighted fast spin echo | Sagittal | 575 | 15 | 3 | 384 × 224 | 180 × 135 |
| Intermediate-weighted fast spin echo | Sagittal | 3,600 | 12 | 3 | 512 × 224 | 180 × 135 |
| T2-weighted fast spin echo | Sagittal | 3,600 | 100 | 3 | 512 × 224 | 180 × 135 |
| T2 gradient echoa | Coronal | 325 | 14 | 3 | 256 × 192 | 180 × 135 |
| T2-weighted fat-suppressed fast spin echo | Coronal | 3,700 | 80 | 3 | 384 × 224 | 180 × 135 |
| Intermediate-weighted fast spin echo | Axial | 3,500 | 15 | 3 | 320 × 256 | 170 × 127.5 |
aThe flip angle was 30°
Grading system of meniscal lesions
| Grade 0 | Normal meniscal horn |
| Grade 1 | Focal increased signal intensity within the meniscus |
| Grade 2 | Linear band of increased signal intensity not extending to the articular surface |
| Grade 3 | Horizontal meniscal tear |
| Grade 4 | Longitudinal or vertical meniscal tear |
| Grade 5 | Complex meniscal tear with a combination of multiple cleavage planes |
For this study, grade 1 and 2 lesions were considered degenerative abnormalities. Signal abnormality extending to the articular surface was used as a criterion for diagnosing a meniscal tear
Fig. 1Flow diagram indicating the selection of subjects and the flow of patients through the study
Change in meniscal appearance on follow-up MRI compared with initial MRI
| Lateral meniscus anterior horn | Lateral meniscus posterior horn | Medial meniscus anterior horn | Medial meniscus posterior horn | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| Unchanged | |||||
| Normal to normal | 56 | 71 | 85 | 19 | 231 |
| Grade 1 to grade 1 | 12 | 9 | 5 | 24 | 50 |
| Grade 2 to grade 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 16 | 20 |
| Horizontal tear to horizontal tear | 5 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 23 |
| Vertical tear to vertical tear | 3 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 11 |
| Complex tear to complex tear | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| New degenerative lesions and tears | |||||
| Normal to grade 1 (new) | 11 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 25 |
| Normal to grade 2 (new) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Normal to horizontal tear | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Progression of lesion complexity | |||||
| Grade 1 to grade 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 |
| Grade 1 to horizontal tear | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grade 2 to horizontal tear | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 |
| Horizontal tear to complex tear | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| Vertical tear to complex tear | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Improvement of lesion complexity | |||||
| Grade 2 to grade 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Horizontal tear to grade 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Vertical tear to grade 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Vertical tear to grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Complex tear to horizontal tear | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Normalisation of lesions | |||||
| Grade 1 to normal | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Grade 2 to normal | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Horizontal tear to normal | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Combinations that are not listed in the table were not observed in our study
Fig. 2Development of a degenerative lesion on follow-up MRI in a patient who sustained a distortion of his right knee. a On the initial MRI examination, a normal anterior horn of the lateral meniscus was seen. b Follow-up MRI after 1 year demonstrated a linear band of increased signal intensity that did not extend to the articular surface, which was scored as a grade 2 degenerative lesion
Results of the univariate ordinal logistic regression analysis for meniscal deterioration versus improvement on follow-up MRI
| Covariable | Observed frequency in study population of 101 patients (percentage)a | Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (continuous) | 40.0 years (11.8, 18–63)a | 1.02/year (1.00–1.04) | 0.03 |
| Age > 40 years | 48 (48) | 2.09 (1.16–3.76) | 0.01 |
| Male sex | 59 (58) | 0.93 (0.58–1.50) | 0.78 |
| Body weight | 82.2 kg (16.0, 40–129)a | 1.01/kg (1.00–1.03) | 0.10 |
| Body mass index (continuous) | 26.1 kg/m2 (4.2, 17–40)a | 1.04 (0.98–1.09) | 0.20 |
| Body mass index > 25 | 58 (57) | 1.45 (0.89–2.36) | 0.13 |
| Body mass index > 30 | 18 (18) | 1.35 (0.74–2.48) | 0.33 |
| Sports injuryb | 53 (52) | 0.81 (0.50–1.30) | 0.38 |
| Baseline pain score continuousc | 4.4 (2.2, 0–10)a | 0.93 (0.85–1.03) | 0.17 |
| Baseline pain score > 6 pointsc | 34 (34) | 0.62 (0.36–1.06) | 0.08 |
| Baseline Lysholm score continuousc | 66.8 (18.1, 18–100)a | 1.00 (0.98–1.01) | 0.53 |
| Baseline Lysholm score > 50c | 79 (78) | 1.07 (0.64–1.80) | 0.79 |
| Pain at passive flexion during physical examination | 62 (61) | 1.16 (0.73–1.84) | 0.53 |
| Meniscal lesion on initial MRI | 142/403 horns (35) | 0.48 (0.23–0.98) | 0.05 |
| Total ACL rupture on initial MRI | 9 (9) | 1.89 (1.12–3.21) | 0.02 |
| Location in posterior horn medial meniscus | 100 (99) | 0.39 (0.14–1.07) | 0.07 |
aFor continuous variables, we report mean (standard deviation, range)
bSix missing values were imputed
cThree missing values were imputed
Results of the multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis
| Covariable | Odds ratio | 95% confidence interval |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| No change and deterioration versus improvement | |||
| Age (continuous, per decade) | 1.33 | 1.07–1.68 | 0.01 |
| Body weight (continuous, per 10 kg) | 0.85 | 0.63–1.15 | 0.29 |
| Presence of meniscal lesion on initial MRI | 0.30 | 0.12–0.72 | 0.01 |
| Presence of total ACL rupture on initial MRI | 2.35 | 1.14–4.82 | 0.02 |
| Location in posterior horn medial meniscus | 0.74 | 0.16–3.46 | 0.70 |
| Deterioration versus no change and improvement | |||
| Age (continuous, per decade) | 1.33 | 1.07–1.68 | 0.01 |
| Body weight (continuous, per 10 kg) | 1.22 | 1.01–1.49 | 0.04 |
| Presence of meniscal lesion on initial MRI | 0.30 | 0.12–0.72 | 0.01 |
| Presence of total ACL rupture on initial MRI | 2.35 | 1.14–4.82 | 0.02 |
| Location in posterior horn medial meniscus | 2.98 | 1.20–7.40 | 0.02 |
For each independent variable, we first evaluated the applicability of the proportional odds assumption by using Gologit2’s ‘autofit’ option and subsequently specified per variable whether or not the proportional odds assumption was to be applied. This resulted in a partial proportional odds model, with two identical regression coefficients for variables meeting the proportional odds assumption and two different coefficients for those that violated the assumption
Perceived recovery and overall per-patient change in meniscal appearance on follow-up MRI
| Perceived recovery | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete recovery | Strong improvement | Some improvement | Unchanged | Some deterioration | Total | |
| MRI appearance improved or unchanged | 12 | 35 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 57 |
| MRI appearance deteriorated | 16 | 22 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 44 |
| Total | 28 | 57 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 101 |
Table displays number of patients. There were no patients reporting substantial deterioration or a condition that was worse than ever