Suat-Jin Lu1,2, Fahim Ul Hassan1, Sanjay Vijayanathan1, Gopinath Gnanasegaran1,3. 1. 1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , London , UK. 2. 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital , Singapore , Singapore. 3. 3 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Free Hospital , London , UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : To assess the role of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT) in the evaluation of knee pain as well as comparing bone scintigraphy (BS), SPECT and SPECT/CT, and assessing the incremental value of SPECT/CT. METHODS: : BS, SPECT and SPECT/CT of patients with knee pain (39 patients, 65 knees, 105 lesions) were directly compared for lesion detection, localisation and characterisation using lesion-based, knee-based and patient-based analyses in this retrospective study. RESULTS: : Lesion detection: BS (91.4%), SPECT (100%) and SPECT/CT (100%). SPECT and SPECT/CT detected significantly more lesions than BS (p < 0.05). Lesion localisation: BS (38.5-41.7%), SPECT (74.4-83.3%) and SPECT/CT (100%). SPECT localised significantly more lesions than BS; SPECT/CT localised significantly more lesions than BS and SPECT (p < 0.01). Lesion characterisation: BS (23.0-52.1%), SPECT (30.8-56.2%) and SPECT/CT (92.3-96.9%). SPECT/CT characterised significantly more lesions than BS and SPECT (p < 0.01). Characterisation of non-arthropathy lesions: BS (6.25%), SPECT (12.5%) and SPECT/CT (93.75%). SPECT/CT characterised significantly more non-arthropathy lesions than BS and SPECT (p < 0.01). BS and SPECT detected none, while SPECT/CT detected 100% of the causative/contributing/associated conditions that co-existed with osteoarthritis. Therefore SPECT/CT detected not only just osteoarthritis but also the causative/contributing/associated conditions. CONCLUSION: : SPECT/CT added significant incremental value to BS and SPECT irrespective of whether evaluation was lesion-based, knee-based or patient-based. SPECT/CT represents a viable alternative to MRI, and addition of SPECT/CT to BS and SPECT should be considered in the evaluation of knee pain. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: Incremental value of bone SPECT/CT in knee pain.
OBJECTIVE: : To assess the role of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT) in the evaluation of knee pain as well as comparing bone scintigraphy (BS), SPECT and SPECT/CT, and assessing the incremental value of SPECT/CT. METHODS: : BS, SPECT and SPECT/CT of patients with knee pain (39 patients, 65 knees, 105 lesions) were directly compared for lesion detection, localisation and characterisation using lesion-based, knee-based and patient-based analyses in this retrospective study. RESULTS: : Lesion detection: BS (91.4%), SPECT (100%) and SPECT/CT (100%). SPECT and SPECT/CT detected significantly more lesions than BS (p < 0.05). Lesion localisation: BS (38.5-41.7%), SPECT (74.4-83.3%) and SPECT/CT (100%). SPECT localised significantly more lesions than BS; SPECT/CT localised significantly more lesions than BS and SPECT (p < 0.01). Lesion characterisation: BS (23.0-52.1%), SPECT (30.8-56.2%) and SPECT/CT (92.3-96.9%). SPECT/CT characterised significantly more lesions than BS and SPECT (p < 0.01). Characterisation of non-arthropathy lesions: BS (6.25%), SPECT (12.5%) and SPECT/CT (93.75%). SPECT/CT characterised significantly more non-arthropathy lesions than BS and SPECT (p < 0.01). BS and SPECT detected none, while SPECT/CT detected 100% of the causative/contributing/associated conditions that co-existed with osteoarthritis. Therefore SPECT/CT detected not only just osteoarthritis but also the causative/contributing/associated conditions. CONCLUSION: : SPECT/CT added significant incremental value to BS and SPECT irrespective of whether evaluation was lesion-based, knee-based or patient-based. SPECT/CT represents a viable alternative to MRI, and addition of SPECT/CT to BS and SPECT should be considered in the evaluation of knee pain. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: Incremental value of bone SPECT/CT in knee pain.
Authors: F Van Acker; J Nuyts; A Maes; B Vanquickenborne; J Stuyck; J Bellemans; S Vleugels; G Bormans; L Mortelmans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 2001-10
Authors: Bruce H Hasegawa; Kenneth H Wong; Koji Iwata; William C Barber; Andrew B Hwang; Anne E Sakdinawat; Mohan Ramaswamy; David C Price; Randall A Hawkins Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-12
Authors: Youngho Seo; Kenneth H Wong; Mingshan Sun; Benjamin L Franc; Randall A Hawkins; Bruce H Hasegawa Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marius Horger; Susanne Martina Eschmann; Christina Pfannenberg; Reinhard Vonthein; Hariolf Besenfelder; C D Claussen; Roland Bares Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.959