| Literature DB >> 30838104 |
Guen Young Lee1, Sujin Kim1, Suk-Ho Baek2, Eui-Chan Jang2, Yong-Chan Ha2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography arthrography (CTA), on the basis of arthroscopic findings, to diagnose acetabular labral tears and chondral lesions.Entities:
Keywords: Acetabular labrum; Chondral lesion; Computed tomography arthrography; Hip; Magnetic resonance imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30838104 PMCID: PMC6389537 DOI: 10.4055/cios.2019.11.1.21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Orthop Surg ISSN: 2005-291X
Demographic Data of the Patients Examined by Arthroscopy
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| No. of patients | 33 (36 Hips) |
| Male:female | 17 (17 Hips, 47):16 (19 Hips, 53) |
| Age (yr) | 35 ± 13.2 (20–61) |
| Primary diagnosis (hip) | |
| Femoroacetabular impingement | 20 (55.5) |
| Pincer type | 8 |
| Cam type | 8 |
| Combined type | 4 |
| Labral tear | 11 (30.5) |
| Snapping hip | 5 (14) |
Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation (range).
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Accuracy for Detecting Acetabular Labral Tears and Chondral Lesions on MRI and CTA by Comparing with Arthroscopic Findings
| Variable | MRI | CTA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labral tear | Chondral lesion | Labral tear | Chondral lesion | |
| Observer 1 | ||||
| Sensitivity (%) | 60 | 36 | 85 | 46 |
| Specificity (%) | 80 | 84 | 90 | 72 |
| Accuracy (%) | 64 | 69 | 86 | 64 |
| Observer 2 | ||||
| Sensitivity (%) | 65 | 46 | 92 | 64 |
| Specificity (%) | 70 | 88 | 80 | 72 |
| Accuracy (%) | 69 | 75 | 89 | 69 |
MRI: magnetic resonance imaging, CTA: computed tomography arthrography.
Fig. 1Proton density magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): the coronal (A) and sagittal (B) views showed a cartilage defect (arrows) on the right acetabulum. The defective cartilage lesion was also seen in computed tomography arthrography (CTA): coronal (C) and sagittal (D) views (arrows). Adjacent subchondral cyst of the acetabulum just above this chondral defect was observed in MRI and CTA. (E) Labral tear. (F) This lesion could be confirmed in arthroscopic examination after labral repair.
Fig. 2On T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging coronal (A) and sagittal (B) views, a definite labral tear was not identified, whereas the lesion was observed in computed tomography coronal (C) and sagittal (D) views. (E) This lesion was confirmed in arthroscopic examination.
Arthroscopic Examination and MRI/CTA Examination Results Based on the Lage Morphologic Classification System
| Variable | Arthroscopic examination | MRI examination | CTA examination |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observer 1 | |||
| Longitudinal peripheral tear | 18 | 13 | 16 |
| Radial fibrillation | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Radial flap | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Unstable | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Observer | 2 | ||
| Longitudinal peripheral tear | 18 | 15 | 15 |
| Radial fibrillation | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| Radial flap | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Unstable | 2 | 3 | 3 |
MRI: magnetic resonance imaging, CTA: computed tomography arthrography.
Comparative Studies of MRI, MRA, and CTA
| Study | Subject patient (hip) | Mean age (yr) | Comparison | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Byrd and Jones | 40 (40) | NR | MRA vs. MRI | 66 vs. 25 | 75 vs. 67 | NR |
| Labral tear | 41 vs. 18 | 100 vs. 100 | NR | |||
| Chondral lesion | ||||||
| Nishii et al. | 18 (20) | 12–49 | CTA vs. MRI | 67 vs. 49 | 89 vs. 89 | 79 vs. 71 |
| Chondral lesion1 | 70 vs. 47 | 79 vs. 71 | 87 vs. 80 | |||
| Chondral lesion2 | ||||||
| Czerny et al. | 39 | MRA vs. MRI | 90 vs. 30 | NR | 91 vs. 36 | |
| Labral tear | ||||||
| Perdikakis et al. | 10 (14) | 43 | MRA vs. CTA | 100 vs. 15 | 50 vs. 13 | 90 vs. 14 |
| Labral tear | 63 vs. 66 | 33 vs. 40 | 55 vs. 66 | |||
| Chondral lesion | ||||||
| Sundberg et al. | 8 (8) | 38 | MRA vs. MRI | 80 vs. 100 | 33 vs. 33 | 63 vs. 75 |
| Labral tear | ||||||
| Toomayan et al. | 48 (51) | 35 | MRA vs. MRI | 92 vs. 25 | 100 vs. 100 | NR |
| Labral tear | ||||||
| This study | 33 (36) | 35 | CTA vs. MRI | 85 vs. 60 | 90 vs. 80 | 86 vs. 64 |
| Labral tear | 46 vs. 36 | 72 vs. 84 | 64 vs. 69 | |||
| Chondral lesion |
MRI: magnetic resonance imaging, MRA: magnetic resonance arthrography, CTA: computed tomography arthrography, NR: not reported, Chondral lesion 1: homogeneous or focal signal intensity without surface irregularity, Chondral lesion 2: contour defect.
Fig. 3There was no abnormal finding on the cartilage of the acetabulum in magnetic resonance imaging (A, B) nor in computer tomography arthrography (C, D). But in arthroscopic examination, we could find a floating lesion of the cartilage (E), called “carpet lesion (F).”