Erin FitzGerald Alaia1, Alex Benedick2, Nancy A Obuchowski3, Joshua M Polster4, Luis S Beltran1, Jean Schils4, Elisabeth Garwood1, Christopher J Burke1, I-Yuan Joseph Chang5, Soterios Gyftopoulos1, Naveen Subhas6. 1. Department of Radiology, Musculoskeletal Division, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Musculoskeletal Division, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children, Dallas, TX, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Musculoskeletal Division, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. subhasn@ccf.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare diagnostic performance of a 5-min knee MRI protocol to that of a standard knee MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred 3 T (100 patients, mean 38.8 years) and 50 1.5 T (46 patients, mean 46.4 years) MRIs, consisting of 5 fast, 2D multi-planar fast-spin-echo (FSE) sequences and five standard multiplanar FSE sequences, from two academic centers (1/2015-1/2016), were retrospectively reviewed by four musculoskeletal radiologists. Agreement between fast and standard (interprotocol agreement) and between standard (intraprotocol agreement) readings for meniscal, ligamentous, chondral, and bone pathology was compared for interchangeability. Frequency of major findings, sensitivity, and specificity was also tested for each protocol. RESULTS: Interprotocol agreement using fast MRI was similar to intraprotocol agreement with standard MRI (83.0-99.5%), with no excess disagreement (≤ 1.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 3.8%), across all structures. Frequency of major findings (1.1-22.4% across structures) on fast and standard MRI was not significantly different (p ≥ 0.215), except more ACL tears on fast MRI (p = 0.021) and more cartilage defects on standard MRI (p < 0.001). Sensitivities (59-100%) and specificities (73-99%) of fast and standard MRI were not significantly different for meniscal and ligament tears (95% CI for difference, -0.08-0.08). For cartilage defects, fast MRI was slightly less sensitive (95% CI for difference, -0.125 to -0.01) but slightly more specific (95% CI for difference, 0.01-0.5) than standard MRI. CONCLUSION: A fast 5-min MRI protocol is interchangeable with and has similar accuracy to a standard knee MRI for evaluating internal derangement of the knee.
PURPOSE: To compare diagnostic performance of a 5-min knee MRI protocol to that of a standard knee MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred 3 T (100 patients, mean 38.8 years) and 50 1.5 T (46 patients, mean 46.4 years) MRIs, consisting of 5 fast, 2D multi-planar fast-spin-echo (FSE) sequences and five standard multiplanar FSE sequences, from two academic centers (1/2015-1/2016), were retrospectively reviewed by four musculoskeletal radiologists. Agreement between fast and standard (interprotocol agreement) and between standard (intraprotocol agreement) readings for meniscal, ligamentous, chondral, and bone pathology was compared for interchangeability. Frequency of major findings, sensitivity, and specificity was also tested for each protocol. RESULTS: Interprotocol agreement using fast MRI was similar to intraprotocol agreement with standard MRI (83.0-99.5%), with no excess disagreement (≤ 1.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 3.8%), across all structures. Frequency of major findings (1.1-22.4% across structures) on fast and standard MRI was not significantly different (p ≥ 0.215), except more ACL tears on fast MRI (p = 0.021) and more cartilage defects on standard MRI (p < 0.001). Sensitivities (59-100%) and specificities (73-99%) of fast and standard MRI were not significantly different for meniscal and ligament tears (95% CI for difference, -0.08-0.08). For cartilage defects, fast MRI was slightly less sensitive (95% CI for difference, -0.125 to -0.01) but slightly more specific (95% CI for difference, 0.01-0.5) than standard MRI. CONCLUSION: A fast 5-min MRI protocol is interchangeable with and has similar accuracy to a standard knee MRI for evaluating internal derangement of the knee.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Steen Moeller; Essa Yacoub; Cheryl A Olman; Edward Auerbach; John Strupp; Noam Harel; Kâmil Uğurbil Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: T M Link; S Majumdar; C Peterfy; H E Daldrup; M Uffmann; C Dowling; L Steinbach; H K Genant Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1998 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Richard Kijowski; Donna G Blankenbaker; Kirkland W Davis; Kazuhiko Shinki; Lee D Kaplan; Arthur A De Smet Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Akshay S Chaudhari; Kathryn J Stevens; Bragi Sveinsson; Jeff P Wood; Christopher F Beaulieu; Edwin H G Oei; Jarrett K Rosenberg; Feliks Kogan; Marcus T Alley; Garry E Gold; Brian A Hargreaves Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-23 Impact factor: 4.813
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