PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) at 3-T magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of meniscal tears. METHODS: Ninety-four patients with tears in the medial meniscus (31) or lateral meniscus (64) imaged with conventional magnetic resonance imaging and SWI followed by knee arthroscopy within 1 month were selected. The diagnostic values of SWI for the detection of meniscal tears were evaluated using arthroscopy as the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy between spin-echo T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) and fat-suppressed proton density-weighted imaging (FS-PDWI) were compared. The diagnosis consistency with two radiologists was also compared. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed for each individual sequence to estimate their diagnostic performance in meniscal tear. RESULTS: Analyses from 31 patients of medial meniscus tears showed that SWI achieved comparable performance with T1WI and FS-PDWI with respect to sensitivity (96.8 vs. 93.5 and 89.2%), specificity (66.7 vs. 66.7 and 66.7%) and accuracy (91.9 vs. 89.2 and 93.5%). In 64 patients of lateral meniscus tears, SWI was found to be a superior method over T1WI and FS-PDWI with regard to sensitivity (98.4 vs. 92.2 and 95.3%), specificity (100 vs. 100 and 100%) and accuracy (98.5 vs. 92.5 and 95.5%). Upon combination of these patients, SWI is similar or superior to T1WI and FS-PDWI with sensitivity (97.9 vs. 92.6 and 94.7%), specificity (77.8 vs. 77.8 and 77.8%) and accuracy (96.2 vs. 89.2 and 93.3%). SWI exhibited similar or better results with respect to sensitivity (97.9 vs. 92.6 and 94.7%), specificity (77.8 vs. 77.8 and 77.8%) and accuracy (96.2 vs. 89.2 and 93.3%) over T1WI and FS-PDWI. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that SWI can be used for the diagnosis of meniscal tears. The sensitivity, accuracy and negative predictive value were same as those of T1WI and FS-PDWI according to the present study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level II.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) at 3-T magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of meniscal tears. METHODS: Ninety-four patients with tears in the medial meniscus (31) or lateral meniscus (64) imaged with conventional magnetic resonance imaging and SWI followed by knee arthroscopy within 1 month were selected. The diagnostic values of SWI for the detection of meniscal tears were evaluated using arthroscopy as the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy between spin-echo T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) and fat-suppressed proton density-weighted imaging (FS-PDWI) were compared. The diagnosis consistency with two radiologists was also compared. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed for each individual sequence to estimate their diagnostic performance in meniscal tear. RESULTS: Analyses from 31 patients of medial meniscus tears showed that SWI achieved comparable performance with T1WI and FS-PDWI with respect to sensitivity (96.8 vs. 93.5 and 89.2%), specificity (66.7 vs. 66.7 and 66.7%) and accuracy (91.9 vs. 89.2 and 93.5%). In 64 patients of lateral meniscus tears, SWI was found to be a superior method over T1WI and FS-PDWI with regard to sensitivity (98.4 vs. 92.2 and 95.3%), specificity (100 vs. 100 and 100%) and accuracy (98.5 vs. 92.5 and 95.5%). Upon combination of these patients, SWI is similar or superior to T1WI and FS-PDWI with sensitivity (97.9 vs. 92.6 and 94.7%), specificity (77.8 vs. 77.8 and 77.8%) and accuracy (96.2 vs. 89.2 and 93.3%). SWI exhibited similar or better results with respect to sensitivity (97.9 vs. 92.6 and 94.7%), specificity (77.8 vs. 77.8 and 77.8%) and accuracy (96.2 vs. 89.2 and 93.3%) over T1WI and FS-PDWI. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that SWI can be used for the diagnosis of meniscal tears. The sensitivity, accuracy and negative predictive value were same as those of T1WI and FS-PDWI according to the present study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level II.
Authors: E Mark Haacke; Norman Y C Cheng; Michael J House; Qiang Liu; Jaladhar Neelavalli; Robert J Ogg; Asadullah Khan; Muhammad Ayaz; Wolff Kirsch; Andre Obenaus Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Vivek Sehgal; Zachary Delproposto; E Mark Haacke; Karen A Tong; Nathaniel Wycliffe; Daniel K Kido; Yingbiao Xu; Jaladhar Neelavalli; Djamel Haddar; Jürgen R Reichenbach Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: E M Escobedo; J C Hunter; G C Zink-Brody; A J Wilson; S D Harrison; D J Fisher Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jan Sedlacik; Christian Kutschbach; Alexander Rauscher; Andreas Deistung; Jürgen R Reichenbach Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-07-18 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Emma Derby; Julia Imrecke; Johann Henckel; Anna Hirschmann; Felix Amsler; Michael T Hirschmann Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Dominik A Sieron; Dionysios Drakopoulos; Milena Mitrakovic; Marek Tombarkiewicz; Daniel Knap; Ivan Platzek; Maciej Tomalski; Andreas Christe Journal: Pol J Radiol Date: 2019-09-06