PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and computed tomography arthrography (CTA) for the detection of chondral lesions of the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints. METHODS: A review of published and unpublished literature sources was conducted on 22nd September 2011. All studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) of MRI or MRA or CTA for the assessment of adults with chondral (cartilage) lesions of the knee (tibiofemoral/patellofemoral joints) with surgical comparison (arthroscopic or open) as the reference test were included. Data were analysed through meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies assessing 2,592 knees from 2,509 patients were included. The findings indicated that whilst presenting a high specificity (0.95-0.99), the sensitivity of MRA, MRI and CTA ranged from 0.70 to 0.80. MRA was superior to MRI and CTA for the detection of patellofemoral joint chondral lesions and that higher field-strength MRI scanner and grade four lesions were more accurately detected compared with lower field-strength and grade one lesions. There appeared no substantial difference in diagnostic accuracy between the interpretation from musculoskeletal and general radiologists when undertaking an MRI review of tibiofemoral and patellofemoral chondral lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist radiological imaging is specific for cartilage disease in the knee but has poorer sensitivity to determine the therapeutic options in this population. Due to this limitation, there remains little indication to replace the 'gold-standard' arthroscopic investigation with MRI, MRA or CTA for the assessment of adults with chondral lesions of the knee. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and computed tomography arthrography (CTA) for the detection of chondral lesions of the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints. METHODS: A review of published and unpublished literature sources was conducted on 22nd September 2011. All studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) of MRI or MRA or CTA for the assessment of adults with chondral (cartilage) lesions of the knee (tibiofemoral/patellofemoral joints) with surgical comparison (arthroscopic or open) as the reference test were included. Data were analysed through meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies assessing 2,592 knees from 2,509 patients were included. The findings indicated that whilst presenting a high specificity (0.95-0.99), the sensitivity of MRA, MRI and CTA ranged from 0.70 to 0.80. MRA was superior to MRI and CTA for the detection of patellofemoral joint chondral lesions and that higher field-strength MRI scanner and grade four lesions were more accurately detected compared with lower field-strength and grade one lesions. There appeared no substantial difference in diagnostic accuracy between the interpretation from musculoskeletal and general radiologists when undertaking an MRI review of tibiofemoral and patellofemoral chondral lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist radiological imaging is specific for cartilage disease in the knee but has poorer sensitivity to determine the therapeutic options in this population. Due to this limitation, there remains little indication to replace the 'gold-standard' arthroscopic investigation with MRI, MRA or CTA for the assessment of adults with chondral lesions of the knee. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Michel D Crema; Frank W Roemer; Monica D Marra; Deborah Burstein; Garry E Gold; Felix Eckstein; Thomas Baum; Timothy J Mosher; John A Carrino; Ali Guermazi Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
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: L V von Engelhardt; A Schmitz; B Burian; P H Pennekamp; H H Schild; C N Kraft; M von Falkenhausen Journal: Orthopade Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 1.087
Authors: J A Gagliardi; E M Chung; V P Chandnani; K L Kesling; K P Christensen; R N Null; M G Radvany; M F Hansen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1994-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jacob C Mandell; Jeffrey A Rhodes; Nehal Shah; Glenn C Gaviola; Andreas H Gomoll; Stacy E Smith Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Tilman Pfitzner; Matthew P Abdel; Philipp von Roth; Carsten Perka; Hagen Hommel Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Pieter Van Dyck; Christoph Kenis; Filip M Vanhoenacker; Valérie Lambrecht; Kristien Wouters; Jan L Gielen; Lieven Dossche; Paul M Parizel Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 4.342