| Literature DB >> 27891511 |
Jan S Kirschke1, Sepp Braun2, Thomas Baum3, Christian Holwein4, Christoph Schaeffeler5, Andreas B Imhoff2, Ernst J Rummeny3, Klaus Woertler3, Pia M Jungmann3.
Abstract
Background. To retrospectively determine the diagnostic value of computed tomography arthrography (CTA) of the ankle in the evaluation of (osteo)chondral lesions in comparison to conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative findings. Methods. A total of N = 79 patients had CTAs and MRI of the ankle; in 17/79 cases surgical reports with statements on cartilage integrity were available. Cartilage lesions and bony defects at talus and tibia were scored according to defect depth and size by two radiologists. Statistical analysis included sensitivity analyses and Cohen's kappa calculations. Results. On CTA, 41/79 and 31/79 patients had full thickness cartilage defects at the talus and at the tibia, respectively. MRI was able to detect 54% of these defects. For the detection of full thickness cartilage lesions, interobserver agreement was substantial (0.72 ± 0.05) for CTA and moderate (0.55 ± 0.07) for MRI. In surgical reports, 88-92% and 46-62% of full thickness defects detected by CTA and MRI were described. CTA findings changed the further clinical management in 15.4% of cases. Conclusions. As compared to conventional MRI, CTA improves detection and visualization of cartilage defects at the ankle and is a relevant tool for treatment decisions in unclear cases.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27891511 PMCID: PMC5116491 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3594253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Exemplary 3 T MR imaging parameters.
| Sequence | 2D IM-w TSE | 2D T2-w TSE | 2D IM-w TSE | 2D T1-w TSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additional features | FS, BLADE | FS, BLADE | DRIVE | |
| Plane | Sagittal | Transverse | Coronal | Coronal |
| Echo time (TE; ms) | 46 | 77 | 47 | 13 |
| Repetition time (TR; ms) | 4500 | 5360 | 4500 | 1000 |
| Field of view (FOV; mm) | 140 | 120 | 140 | 140 |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| In-plane resolution (mm2) | 0.44 × 0.44 | 0.38 × 0.38 | 0.36 × 0.36 | 0.36 × 0.36 |
| Flip angle (°) | 90° | 90° | 90° | 90° |
| Number of slices | 22 | 25 | 24 | 22 |
| Receiver bandwidth (Hz/ pixel) | 182 | 147 | 181 | 171 |
| Echo train length | 9 | 15 | 9 | 3 |
| Phase encoding direction | AP | RL | RL | RL |
| Distance factor (%) | 10 | 20 | 10 | 10 |
| Acquisition time (min) | 5 : 08 | 3 : 57 | 5 : 48 | 4 : 04 |
FOV: field of view; w: weighted; TSE: turbo spin echo; IM: intermediate; fs: fat saturated; BLADE: motion correction with radial blades; DRIVE pulse: driven equilibrium pulse.
Detailed specifications of the indications for CTA and surgeries.
| A: indication | Number of cases ( |
|---|---|
| OCL → fragment instability? ( |
|
| OCL → extend? |
|
| Subchondral cyst or ganglia → fissural defect? ( |
|
| Subchondral BMEL → fissural/cartilage defect? ( |
|
| After cartilage repair surgery |
|
| Bone necrosis/infarct → cartilage involvement? |
|
| Tumora |
|
| No findings on MRI but persistent complaints → cartilage defect? |
|
|
| |
| B: previous surgery | Number of cases ( |
|
| |
| Osteochondral transplantation |
|
| Autologous chondrocyte implantation |
|
| Biomatrix implantation |
|
| Retrograde drilling |
|
| Curettage of ganglion/cyst and spongiosa graft |
|
| Surgical treatment of ankle fractures |
|
| Tumor surgery (giant cell tumor) |
|
| Arthroscopy (debridement, shaving) |
|
|
| |
| C: surgery after CTA | Number of cases ( |
|
| |
| Osteochondral transplantation |
|
| Microfracturing/antegrade drilling |
|
| Spongiosa graft |
|
| Only chondral and osseous debridement |
|
| Metal implant removal |
|
| Syndesmosis reconstruction |
|
A: indications including clinical queries (→); B: previous surgeries; C: surgeries after CTA.
aTumors were one chondroblastoma at the talus and one giant cell tumor at the tibia.
OCL: osteochondral lesion; BMEL: bone marrow edema-like lesion.
Figure 1CTA for detection of full thickness cartilage lesions at the ankle in the presence of subchondral cysts. On MRI presence of full thickness cartilage defects remain unclear. In case (a) CTA demonstrates incongruence of the cartilage surface but no full thickness defect. In case (b) CTA demonstrated a fissural full thickness cartilage defect, allowing communication between intra-articular synovial fluid and subchondral cyst.
Figure 2Divergent results for presence of full thickness cartilage defects on MRI and CTA. In case (a) a full thickness cartilage defect at the talus was suggested on MRI; CTA revealed depression of the cartilage surface but no full thickness defect. In case (b) no cartilage defect was suggested on MRI but due to massive bone marrow edema at the tibia CTA was performed and revealed a fissural full thickness defect at the tibia.
Figure 3Considering intraoperative findings as standard of reference. CTA showed improved sensitivity compared to MRI. Exemplarily, in this subject with an osteochondral defect at the medial talus only BMEL but no cartilage defect was depicted on MRI (a). The full thickness cartilage defect revealed by CTA (b) was confirmed with a probe intraoperatively (c).
Figure 4Different presentations of osteochondral defects. (a) Patient with suspicion of an osteochondral defect on MRI but no defect on CTA. (b) Patient with an osteochondral defect without loosening (no subsequent surgery). (c) Patient with similar findings on MRI as in (b); however on CTA contrast enhanced fluid surrounds the osteochondral fragment indicating instability and the patient had to undergo subsequent surgery.
Frequencies of osteochondral lesions on CTA and MRI.
| CTA ( | MRI ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Talus | Tibia | Talus | Tibia | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||
| Total |
|
|
|
|
| Fissure |
|
|
|
|
| Small |
|
|
|
|
| Medium |
|
|
|
|
| Large |
|
|
|
|
| Extensive |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Total |
|
|
|
|
| Fissure |
|
|
|
|
| Small |
|
|
|
|
| Medium |
|
|
|
|
| Large |
|
|
|
|
| Extensive |
|
|
|
|
aPartial thickness parts and full thickness parts.
Cohen's kappa values for interobserver reliability.
| Parameter | CTA | MRI |
|---|---|---|
| Interobserver agreement ± SEM | Interobserver agreement ± SEM | |
|
| ||
| Presence | 0.72 ± 0.05 | 0.55 ± 0.07 |
| Size | 0.47 ± 0.05 | 0.55 ± 0.04 |
|
| ||
| Presence | 0.82 ± 0.05 | 0.55 ± 0.06 |
| Size | 0.48 ± 0.05 | 0.50 ± 0.04 |
|
| ||
| Presence | 0.70 ± 0.06 | 0.78 ± 0.04 |
| Depth | 0.60 ± 0.05 | 0.75 ± 0.04 |
| Size | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 0.63 ± 0.04 |