| Literature DB >> 29843749 |
Lucas Annabell1, Vahid Master2, Alexander Rhodes2, Brett Moreira1, Cassandra Coetzee3, Phong Tran1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy has led to a greater understanding of intra-articular hip pathology. Non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is currently the gold standard in non-invasive imaging diagnosis, with high sensitivity in identifying labral pathology but equivocal results for ligamentum teres damage and chondral defects. The aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of non-contrast MRI for diagnosis of intra-articular hip derangements and identify radiological features that could increase the accuracy of the diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: Hip arthroscopy; Ligamentum teres; MRI; Magnetic resonance imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29843749 PMCID: PMC5975565 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0832-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Grading system for ligamentum teres tears
| Grade of tear | Modified Gray and Villar classification |
|---|---|
| 0 | No tear |
| 1 | Low grade tear < 50% |
| 2 | High grade tear > 50% |
| 3 | Complete tear |
Grading system for chondral rim damage
| Grade of chondrosis | Original Outerbridge classification | Modified Outerbridge classification for acetabular chondrosis |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Softening and swelling of cartilage | Softening of cartilage |
| 2 | Fragmentation and fissuring in an area 1.5 cm or less in diameter | Cleavage tear |
| 3 | Fragmentation and fissuring to the level of subchondral bone in an area with a diameter more than 1.5 cm | Delamination |
| 4 | Exposed subchondral bone | Erosion of cartilage down to exposed bone |
Fig. 1Arthroscopic findings. a Labral tear. b Ligamentum teres tear and chondral damage. c Inflamed ligamentum teres
Fig. 2MRI findings. a Chondral rim damage. b Ligamentum teres tear. c Labral tear
MRI results compared with arthroscopy—individual observers
| Accuracy | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observer | A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B |
| Lig Teres | 80.28 | 91.55 | 88.71 | 93.65 | 22.22 | 75.00 | 88.71 | 96.72 | 22.22 | 60.00 |
| 95% CI | – | – | 78.11–95.34 | 84.53–98.24 | 2.81–60.01 | 34.91–96.81 | 78.11–95.34 | 88.55–99.61 | 2.81–60.01 | 26.24–87.84 |
| Labrum | 90.14 | 81.69 | 96.43 | 83.93 | 66.67 | 73.33 | 91.53 | 92.16 | 83.33 | 55.00 |
| 95% CI | – | – | 87.69–99.56 | 71.67–92.38 | 38.38–88.18 | 44.9–92.21 | 81.32–97.19 | 81.12–97.82 | 51.59–97.91 | 31.53–76.94 |
| Chondral rim | 85.92 | 85.92 | 93.22 | 89.47 | 50.00 | 71.43 | 90.16 | 92.73 | 60.00 | 62.50 |
| 95% CI | – | – | 83.54–98.12 | 78.48–96.04 | 21.09–78.91 | 41.9–91.61 | 79.70–96.34 | 82.41–97.98 | 26.24–87.84 | 34.52–85.41 |
Abbreviations: PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value
MRI results compared with arthroscopy—combined results
| Accuracy | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lig Teres | 85.92 | 91.20 | 47.06 | 92.68 | 42.11 |
| 95% CI | – | 84.80–95.52 | 22.98–72.19 | 86.56–96.6 | 19.72–67.17 |
| Labrum | 85.92 | 90.18 | 70.00 | 91.82 | 65.63 |
| 95% CI | – | 83.11–94.99 | 50.60–85.27 | 85.00–96.21 | 46.81–81.43 |
| Chondral rim | 85.92 | 91.38 | 61.54 | 91.38 | 61.54 |
| 95% CI | – | 84.72–95.79 | 40.57–79.77 | 84.72–95.79 | 40.13–80.10 |
Abbreviations: PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value