Literature DB >> 23324431

Preoperative MRI underestimates articular cartilage defect size compared with findings at arthroscopic knee surgery.

Andrew B Campbell1, Michael V Knopp, Gregory P Kolovich, Wendo Wei, Guang Jia, Robert A Siston, David C Flanigan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used as a preoperative tool to estimate the size of articular cartilage defects to optimize treatment selection. However, the reliability of MRI sizing of cartilage defects is not well understood. Hypothesis/
PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the size of knee articular cartilage defects on MRI to arthroscopic visualization after debridement. It was hypothesized that MRI sizing would produce measurements that were no different than those made during arthroscopic knee surgery. STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: Seventy-seven patients (age [mean ± SD], 38 ± 10.7 years) who met inclusion criteria underwent preoperative knee MRI of at least 1.5 T within 1 year of arthroscopic knee surgery for a high-grade cartilage defect. Postdebridement defect sizes were obtained from intraoperative surgery notes and compared with retrospective MRI estimates.
RESULTS: Ninety-two total cartilage defects were analyzed with an average of 1.2 high-grade defects per knee and average postdebridement defect area of 2.99 cm(2) per lesion (95% CI, 1.63-2.26 cm(2)). Preoperative MRI analysis estimated a lesion area that was an average of 1.04 cm(2) smaller (95% CI, 0.70-1.39 cm(2); P < .0001). In 74% of the lesions analyzed, defect size was larger on arthroscopic visualization than was estimated by MRI sizing. On average, MRI underestimated the defect area by 70% compared with arthroscopic visualization.
CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging underestimates the size of articular cartilage defects compared with final postdebridement size as measured during arthroscopic knee surgery. Thus, before arthroscopic surgery, orthopaedic surgeons should consider treatment strategies that are appropriate for a larger defect than predicted by preoperative MRI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23324431     DOI: 10.1177/0363546512472044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  21 in total

1.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score and Classification System (AMADEUS) for Assessment of Preoperative Cartilage Defect Severity.

Authors:  Pia M Jungmann; Götz H Welsch; Mats Brittberg; Siegfried Trattnig; Sepp Braun; Andreas B Imhoff; Gian M Salzmann
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  [Partial and complete joint transplantation with fresh osteochondral allografts-the FLOCSAT concept].

Authors:  C Krettek; J-D Clausen; N Bruns; C Neunaber
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.000

3.  OSTEOCHONDRAL ALLOGRAFT TRANSPLANTATION for the KNEE: POST-OPERATIVE REHABILITATION.

Authors:  Daniel B Haber; Catherine A Logan; Colin P Murphy; Anthony Sanchez; Robert F LaPrade; Matthew T Provencher
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2019-06

4.  Knee Cartilage Defect Characteristics Vary among Symptomatic Recreational and Competitive Scholastic Athletes Eligible for Cartilage Restoration Surgery.

Authors:  Joshua S Everhart; Zak Boggs; Alex C DiBartola; Brennan Wright; David C Flanigan
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2019-03-03       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Diagnosis and classification of chondral knee injuries: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopy.

Authors:  Marcus Vinicius Danieli; João Paulo Fernandes Guerreiro; Alexandre deOliveira Queiroz; Hamilton daRosa Pereira; Susi Tagima; Marcelo Garcia Marini; Daniele Cristina Cataneo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-05-10       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  New approach for predictive measurement of knee cartilage defects with three-dimensional printing based on CT-arthrography: A feasibility study.

Authors:  R Michalik; S Schrading; T Dirrichs; A Prescher; C K Kuhl; M Tingart; B Rath
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2016-10-31

7.  Evaluating the cartilage adjacent to the site of repair surgery with glycosaminoglycan-specific magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ulrich Koller; Sebastian Apprich; Benjamin Schmitt; Reinhard Windhager; Siegfried Trattnig
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Accurate Reporting of Concomitant Procedures Is Highly Variable in Studies Investigating Knee Cartilage Restoration.

Authors:  William L Sheppard; Betina B Hinckel; Armin Arshi; Seth L Sherman; Kristofer J Jones
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2019-04-11       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Symptom Chronicity and Tobacco Use: Differences in Athletic and Nonathletic Candidates for Cartilage Surgery.

Authors:  Joshua S Everhart; Sravya Vajapey; James C Kirven; Moneer M Abouljoud; Alex C DiBartola; Brennan Wright; David C Flanigan
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Cartiform Implantation for focal cartilage defects in the knee: A 2-year clinical and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study.

Authors:  Craig H Bennett; Vidushan Nadarajah; Michelle C Moore; Julio J Jauregui; Andrew G Dubina; Cameran Burt; Derik L Davis; Arvinder Uppal; R Frank Henn
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-02-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.