Nathan D Cecava1, Shane Dieckman2, Kevin P Banks3,4, Liem T Mansfield5,4. 1. Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, 1100 Wilford Hall Loop, Lackland AFB, TX, 78236, USA. natececava@gmail.com. 2. Musculoskeletal Imaging, United States Air Force Academy Clinic, 4102 Pinion Drive, Suite 100, Colorado Springs, CO, 80840, USA. 3. Brooke Army Medical Center, 3551 Roger Brooke Dr, Fort Sam Houston, TX, 78234, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, USUHS, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, 1100 Wilford Hall Loop, Lackland AFB, TX, 78236, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Traumatic knee injury is a common clinical presentation. However, knee internal derangement often goes undiagnosed on physical exam. The authors hypothesize that patients with suprapatellar joint effusion greater than 10 mm anteroposterior diameter on lateral radiograph have a high likelihood of knee internal derangement on magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of knee radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging in 198 patients age 18-40 years with acute knee injury was performed. Suprapatellar effusion diameter on lateral radiography was correlated to the presence of internal derangement on magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging anteroposterior effusion size at four locations was correlated to radiographic suprapatellar effusion measurements. RESULTS: Logistic regression showed a positive correlation between radiographic effusion size and the presence of internal derangement on magnetic resonance exams (p value < 0.001). Radiographic effusion > 10 mm was established as a positive test, yielding test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 55, 96, 93, 71, and 77%, respectively. Statistical analysis showed the radiographic anteroposterior effusion diameter most closely approximated the magnetic resonance effusion diameter at the lateral patellofemoral recess. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that knee radiography is a highly specific screening test for internal derangement in patients less than 40 years old with acute knee injury. In this patient population, knee effusion > 10 mm on lateral radiograph should prompt consideration for knee magnetic resonance examination. Adopting this approach as a clinical guideline has the potential to decrease delayed diagnosis, improve patient outcomes, and decrease cost-associated disability.
PURPOSE:Traumatic knee injury is a common clinical presentation. However, knee internal derangement often goes undiagnosed on physical exam. The authors hypothesize that patients with suprapatellar joint effusion greater than 10 mm anteroposterior diameter on lateral radiograph have a high likelihood of knee internal derangement on magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of knee radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging in 198 patients age 18-40 years with acute knee injury was performed. Suprapatellar effusion diameter on lateral radiography was correlated to the presence of internal derangement on magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging anteroposterior effusion size at four locations was correlated to radiographic suprapatellar effusion measurements. RESULTS: Logistic regression showed a positive correlation between radiographic effusion size and the presence of internal derangement on magnetic resonance exams (p value < 0.001). Radiographic effusion > 10 mm was established as a positive test, yielding test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 55, 96, 93, 71, and 77%, respectively. Statistical analysis showed the radiographic anteroposterior effusion diameter most closely approximated the magnetic resonance effusion diameter at the lateral patellofemoral recess. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that knee radiography is a highly specific screening test for internal derangement in patients less than 40 years old with acute knee injury. In this patient population, knee effusion > 10 mm on lateral radiograph should prompt consideration for knee magnetic resonance examination. Adopting this approach as a clinical guideline has the potential to decrease delayed diagnosis, improve patient outcomes, and decrease cost-associated disability.
Authors: Richard C Mather; Lane Koenig; Mininder S Kocher; Timothy M Dall; Paul Gallo; Daniel J Scott; Bernard R Bach; Kurt P Spindler Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Richard C Mather; William E Garrett; Brian J Cole; Kristen Hussey; Michael P Bolognesi; Tally Lassiter; Lori A Orlando Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Edwin H G Oei; Jeroen J Nikken; Abida Z Ginai; Gabriel P Krestin; Jan A N Verhaar; Arie B van Vugt; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: I G Stiell; G H Greenberg; G A Wells; R D McKnight; A A Cwinn; T Cacciotti; I McDowell; N A Smith Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Michael J Tuite; Mark J Kransdorf; Francesca D Beaman; Ronald S Adler; Behrang Amini; Marc Appel; Stephanie A Bernard; Molly E Dempsey; Ian Blair Fries; Bennett S Greenspan; Bharti Khurana; Timothy J Mosher; Eric A Walker; Robert J Ward; Daniel E Wessell; Barbara N Weissman Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Jordan R Davis; Jacqueline L Yurgil; Peter H Van Geertruyden; Jefferson W Jex; Syed I Ahmed; Hind A Beydoun; Paul Clark Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2021-07-30