OBJECTIVE: Assess the diagnostic accuracy of 3-T indirect magnetic resonance arthrography (iMRA) for hip cartilage and labral pathology detection using arthroscopy as the reference standard and compare it to the published performance of direct magnetic resonance arthrography (dMRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2011, 290 patients suspected of having femoroacetabular impingement underwent iMRA. Our study group consisted of 41 of these patients (17 males, mean age 35 years; 24 females, mean age 33 years) who did not have a prior history of hip surgery and who subsequently underwent arthroscopy. Two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists separately evaluated the randomized and anonymized studies for the presence and quadrant location of labral and cartilage pathology. These recorded data were compared to arthroscopic reports. RESULTS: Forty-one patients had labral pathology, 34 patients had acetabular and 5 patients had femoral cartilage pathology at arthroscopy. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative- and positive-predictive values for labral lesion detection were respectively 98, 99, 99, 99 and 98 %; for acetabular cartilage lesion detection they were 69, 98, 89, 87 and 95 %; for femoral cartilage lesion detection they were 69, 95, 93 and 39 %. Sensitivities of iMRA by quadrant (anteroinferior, anterosuperior, posteroinferior, posterosuperior) for the labrum were 100.0, 95.0, NA and 85.7 %, for acetabular cartilage were NA, 58.8, NA and 39.5 % and for femoral cartilage were 50.0, 33.3, 75.0 and 75.0 %). NA indicates results not available because of the absence of findings in those quadrants. Specificities of iMRA by quadrant (anteroinferior, anterosuperior, posteroinferior, posterosuperior) for the labrum (95.0, 100.0, 95.1, 67.5 %), acetabular (100.0, 85.7, 92.6, 79.5 %) and femoral cartilage (100.0, 94.7, 96.2, 85.9 %). CONCLUSION: iMRA at 3 T is accurate in detecting labral pathology suggesting that it is a viable alternative to dMRA.
OBJECTIVE: Assess the diagnostic accuracy of 3-T indirect magnetic resonance arthrography (iMRA) for hip cartilage and labral pathology detection using arthroscopy as the reference standard and compare it to the published performance of direct magnetic resonance arthrography (dMRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2011, 290 patients suspected of having femoroacetabular impingement underwent iMRA. Our study group consisted of 41 of these patients (17 males, mean age 35 years; 24 females, mean age 33 years) who did not have a prior history of hip surgery and who subsequently underwent arthroscopy. Two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists separately evaluated the randomized and anonymized studies for the presence and quadrant location of labral and cartilage pathology. These recorded data were compared to arthroscopic reports. RESULTS: Forty-one patients had labral pathology, 34 patients had acetabular and 5 patients had femoral cartilage pathology at arthroscopy. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative- and positive-predictive values for labral lesion detection were respectively 98, 99, 99, 99 and 98 %; for acetabular cartilage lesion detection they were 69, 98, 89, 87 and 95 %; for femoral cartilage lesion detection they were 69, 95, 93 and 39 %. Sensitivities of iMRA by quadrant (anteroinferior, anterosuperior, posteroinferior, posterosuperior) for the labrum were 100.0, 95.0, NA and 85.7 %, for acetabular cartilage were NA, 58.8, NA and 39.5 % and for femoral cartilage were 50.0, 33.3, 75.0 and 75.0 %). NA indicates results not available because of the absence of findings in those quadrants. Specificities of iMRA by quadrant (anteroinferior, anterosuperior, posteroinferior, posterosuperior) for the labrum (95.0, 100.0, 95.1, 67.5 %), acetabular (100.0, 85.7, 92.6, 79.5 %) and femoral cartilage (100.0, 94.7, 96.2, 85.9 %). CONCLUSION: iMRA at 3 T is accurate in detecting labral pathology suggesting that it is a viable alternative to dMRA.
Authors: Michael K Shindle; James E Voos; Shane J Nho; Benton E Heyworth; Bryan T Kelly Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Gustaaf Reurink; Sebastiaan P L Jansen; Jasper M Bisselink; Patrice W J Vincken; Adam Weir; Maarten H Moen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Michael B Zlatkin; Deborah Pevsner; Timothy G Sanders; Chris R Hancock; Cesar E Ceballos; Mauricio F Herrera Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Laith M Jazrawi; Michael J Alaia; Gregory Chang; Erin F Fitzgerald; Michael P Recht Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Lucas A Anderson; Christopher L Peters; Brandon B Park; Gregory J Stoddard; Jill A Erickson; Julia R Crim Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Anthony S Tadros; Brady K Huang; Lucas Wymore; Heinz Hoenecke; Jan Fronek; Eric Y Chang Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Andrea Lazik-Palm; Oliver Kraff; Christina Geis; Sören Johst; Juliane Goebel; Mark E Ladd; Harald H Quick; Jens M Theysohn Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A M Saied; C Redant; M El-Batouty; M R El-Lakkany; W A El-Adl; J Anthonissen; R Verdonk; E A Audenaert Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Noam Ben-Eliezer; José G Raya; James S Babb; Thomas Youm; Daniel K Sodickson; Riccardo Lattanzi Journal: Cartilage Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 3.117