Giovanni Foti1, Antonio Campacci2, Michele Conati2, Mirko Trentadue3, Claudio Zorzi2, Giovanni Carbognin4. 1. Department of Radiology, Sacro Cuore Hospital, Negrar, Italy. gfoti81@yahoo.it. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sacro Cuore Hospital, Negrar, Italy. 3. Department of Radiology, Borgo Roma Hospital, Verona, Italy. 4. Department of Radiology, Sacro Cuore Hospital, Negrar, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional (3D) intermediate-weighted FSE (IW-3D) and 3D hybrid T1-weighted sequences (Hy-3D) and 2D fast-spin-echo sequences (FSE) in diagnosing chondral and labral lesions at 1.5 Tesla hip MR arthrography (MRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained and informed consent was waived. Ninety-two consecutive patients were evaluated. Chondral and labral lesions were retrospectively and independently evaluated by two radiologists. Intra-operative findings were used as the reference standard (arthroscopy = 73, open surgery = 19). Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and accuracy (Acc) values that obtained were compared using McNemar test. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Inter-observer agreement was calculated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Surgeons revealed 81 labrum and 44 chondral lesions, respectively. The highest Se, Sp, and Acc for Reader 1 were 96.3, 90.9, and 95.6%, respectively, in evaluating labral lesions (by reading 2D data set) and 90.9, 100, and 95.7% in evaluating chondral lesions (by reading IW-3D images). The highest Se, Sp, and Acc for Reader 2 were 93.8, 81.8, and 92.4% in evaluating labral lesions (using 2D images) and 88.6, 97.9, and 93.5%, respectively, in evaluating chondral lesions (using Hy-3D). The difference of diagnostic accuracy achieved was not significant (p > 0.05). A near-perfect inter-observer agreement was achieved by reading 2D data set (k = 0.88) and Hy-3D (k = 0.83) and IW-3D (k = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: At 1.5 Tesla hip MRA, the accuracy of IW-3D and Hy-3D images was not significantly higher than the 2D sequences in evaluating acetabular labrum and chondral lesions.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional (3D) intermediate-weighted FSE (IW-3D) and 3D hybrid T1-weighted sequences (Hy-3D) and 2D fast-spin-echo sequences (FSE) in diagnosing chondral and labral lesions at 1.5 Tesla hip MR arthrography (MRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained and informed consent was waived. Ninety-two consecutive patients were evaluated. Chondral and labral lesions were retrospectively and independently evaluated by two radiologists. Intra-operative findings were used as the reference standard (arthroscopy = 73, open surgery = 19). Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and accuracy (Acc) values that obtained were compared using McNemar test. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Inter-observer agreement was calculated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Surgeons revealed 81 labrum and 44 chondral lesions, respectively. The highest Se, Sp, and Acc for Reader 1 were 96.3, 90.9, and 95.6%, respectively, in evaluating labral lesions (by reading 2D data set) and 90.9, 100, and 95.7% in evaluating chondral lesions (by reading IW-3D images). The highest Se, Sp, and Acc for Reader 2 were 93.8, 81.8, and 92.4% in evaluating labral lesions (using 2D images) and 88.6, 97.9, and 93.5%, respectively, in evaluating chondral lesions (using Hy-3D). The difference of diagnostic accuracy achieved was not significant (p > 0.05). A near-perfect inter-observer agreement was achieved by reading 2D data set (k = 0.88) and Hy-3D (k = 0.83) and IW-3D (k = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: At 1.5 Tesla hip MRA, the accuracy of IW-3D and Hy-3D images was not significantly higher than the 2D sequences in evaluating acetabular labrum and chondral lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D sequences; Chondral defects; Femoro-acetabular impingement; Hip MR arthrography; Labral tears
Authors: Alberto Aliprandi; Francesco Di Pietto; Paolo Minafra; Marcello Zappia; Simona Pozza; Luca Maria Sconfienza Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Christine L Abraham; Neal K Bangerter; Lance S McGavin; Christopher L Peters; Alex J Drew; Christopher J Hanrahan; Andrew E Anderson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Miriam A Bredella; Erika J Ulbrich; David W Stoller; Suzanne E Anderson Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: Florian Schmaranzer; Andrea Klauser; Michael Kogler; Benjamin Henninger; Thomas Forstner; Markus Reichkendler; Ehrenfried Schmaranzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Scott R Montgomery; Stephanie S Ngo; Taylor Hobson; Shawn Nguyen; Ram Alluri; Jeffrey C Wang; Sharon L Hame Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Patrick R Knuesel; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Hubert P Noetzli; Claudio Dora; Marco Zanetti; Juerg Hodler; Bernd Kuehn; Marius R Schmid Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Giovanni Foti; William Mantovani; Matteo Catania; Paolo Avanzi; Simone Caia; Claudio Zorzi; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Henner Huflage; Karsten Sebastian Luetkens; Andreas Steven Kunz; Nora Conrads; Rafael Gregor Jakubietz; Michael Georg Jakubietz; Lenhard Pennig; Lukas Goertz; Thorsten Alexander Bley; Rainer Schmitt; Jan-Peter Grunz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 5.315