Literature DB >> 31463805

Abbreviated MRI of the foot in patients with suspected osteomyelitis.

Hemang M Kotecha1, Hao S Lo2, Srinivasan Vedantham3, Heeseop Shin4, Christopher A Cerniglia2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol of the foot for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in patients with acute foot infection.
METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated adult patients (age 18 and over) visiting an academic medical center from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015 who were imaged with MRI for suspected acute pedal osteomyelitis. Examinations were performed utilizing the departmental standard protocol. All examinations were retrospectively interpreted by five radiologists under two protocols: a reference standard protocol consisting of all non-contrast sequences obtained at initial acquisition and an abbreviated protocol consisting of only coronal T1-weighted and sagittal T2-weighted fast multiplanar inversion-recovery (FMPIR) sequences. Interpretation of the two imaging subsets was separated in time by at least 6 weeks for each reader. Each examination was assigned a score to represent one of four diagnostic categories: normal; soft tissue infection without bone changes or bone changes specific to a non-infectious etiology; nonspecific bone marrow changes; or bone changes specific for osteomyelitis. Diagnostic accuracy of both protocols was determined based on clinical diagnosis and treatment of osteomyelitis, and histopathology when available.
RESULTS: One hundred and two MRI examinations met inclusion criteria; participants ranged in age from 26 to 91 years, with a mean age of 59 years. Seventy examinations were performed for male participants (69%) and 32 for female participants (31%). Thirty-five had a confirmed diagnosis of osteomyelitis, while the remainder (n = 67) did not. An average of 6 non-contrast sequences was performed during each examination. The most common protocol (53/102 examinations) was comprised of the following 6 sequences: axial T1-weighted, axial fat-saturated proton density, sagittal T1-weighted, sagittal T2-weighted FMPIR, coronal T1-weighted, and coronal fat-saturated proton density. After patient positioning, the abbreviated protocol sequences (sagittal T2-weighted FMPIR and coronal T1-weighted) were performed in an average total of 8 min. The reference standard protocol required an average of 22 min to complete 6 sequences. Averaged across all readers, the AUC for the reference standard full protocol and the abbreviated protocols were 0.843 and 0.873, respectively. The difference in AUC between protocols was not statistically significant (p = 0.1297), with the abbreviated protocol showing a non-significantly greater AUC.
CONCLUSIONS: An abbreviated MRI protocol, including only coronal T1-weighted and sagittal T2-weighted FMPIR images, is non-inferior to standard MRI protocol for the diagnosis of acute pedal osteomyelitis. It should be considered as a diagnostic alternative for reducing imaging time and improving patient access to MRI.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abbreviated protocol; Foot infection; MRI; Osteomyelitis

Year:  2019        PMID: 31463805     DOI: 10.1007/s10140-019-01722-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Radiol        ISSN: 1070-3004


  14 in total

1.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

2.  A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Nancy A Obuchowski; Kevin M Schartz; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-02-10       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Limitations of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcers.

Authors:  Cedric P Yansouni; Anton Mak; Michael D Libman
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 5.  Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing foot osteomyelitis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alok Kapoor; Stephanie Page; Michael Lavalley; Daniel R Gale; David T Felson
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-01-22

6.  2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.

Authors:  Benjamin A Lipsky; Anthony R Berendt; Paul B Cornia; James C Pile; Edgar J G Peters; David G Armstrong; H Gunner Deery; John M Embil; Warren S Joseph; Adolf W Karchmer; Michael S Pinzur; Eric Senneville
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Emergency MRI utilization trends at a tertiary care academic medical center: baseline data.

Authors:  David Rankey; James L Leach; Sabrina D Leach
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 8.  Osteomyelitis.

Authors:  Daniel P Lew; Francis A Waldvogel
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004 Jul 24-30       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination and imaging tests for osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marie T Dinh; Cybele L Abad; Nasia Safdar
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 9.079

10.  ACR Appropriateness Criteria on suspected osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Mark E Schweitzer; Richard H Daffner; Barbara N Weissman; D Lee Bennett; Judy S Blebea; Jon A Jacobson; William B Morrison; Charles S Resnik; Catherine C Roberts; David A Rubin; Leanne L Seeger; Mihra Taljanovic; James N Wise; William K Payne
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.532

View more
  2 in total

1.  Performance of a rapid two-sequence screening protocol for osteomyelitis of the foot.

Authors:  Adam D Singer; Monica Umpierrez; Aparna Kakarala; Marcos C Schechter; Michael Maceroli; Gulshan B Sharma; Ravi R Rajani
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Operational Considerations in Emergency Radiology.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Robinson; Joel A Gross; Wendy A Cohen; Ken F Linnau
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 0.800

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.