Article

MR and CT arthrography of the knee.

Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology (Impact Factor: 1.4). 02/2012; 16(1):57-68. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1304301
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT MR and CT arthrography are important imaging modalities for the assessment of the knee in certain situations. Indications for MR arthrography of the knee include assessment of the postoperative meniscus, the presence of chondral and osteochondral lesions, and the presence of intra-articular bodies. The major indication for CT arthrography is evaluating suspected internal derangement in patients who are unable to undergo MRI. In addition to reviewing the established clinical indications for MR and CT arthrography of the knee, the commonly used techniques, normal variants that can simulate disease, and the most commonly found pathologies that can be diagnosed with these modalities are discussed. Potential indications that are not currently well established in the literature including the evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament injury and autologous chondrocyte implants are examined. Where appropriate, the literature on controversial topics or diagnoses is reviewed. The use of conventional imaging versus CT and MR arthrography is also compared.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
178 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Articular cartilage defects are prevalent in metacarpo/metatarsophalangeal (MCP/MTP) joints of horses. The aim of this study was to determine and compare the sensitivity and specificity of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (3-T MRI) and computed tomography arthrography (CTA) to identify structural cartilage defects in the equine MCP/MTP joint. Forty distal cadaver limbs were imaged by CTA (after injection of contrast medium) and by 3-T MRI using specific sequences, namely, dual-echo in the steady-state (DESS), and sampling perfection with application-optimised contrast using different flip-angle evolutions (SPACE). Gross anatomy was used as the gold standard to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of both imaging techniques. CTA sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 and 0.96, respectively, and were significantly higher than those of MRI (0.41 and 0.93, respectively) in detecting overall cartilage defects (no defect vs. defect). The intra and inter-rater agreements were 0.96 and 0.92, respectively, and 0.82 and 0.88, respectively, for CT and MRI. The positive predictive value for MRI was low (0.57). CTA was considered a valuable tool for assessing cartilage defects in the MCP/MTP joint due to its short acquisition time, its specificity and sensitivity, and it was also more accurate than MRI. However, MRI permits assessment of soft tissues and subchondral bone and is a useful technique for joint evaluation, although clinicians should be aware of the limitations of this diagnostic technique, including reduced accuracy.
    The Veterinary Journal 10/2013; · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To compare delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and delayed quantitative CT arthrography (dQCTA) to each other, and their association to arthroscopy. Additionally, the relationship between dGEMRIC with intravenous (dGEMRIC(IV)) and intra-articular contrast agent administration (dGEMRIC(IA)) was determined. DESIGN: Eleven patients with knee pain were scanned at 3 Tesla MRI and 64-slice CT before arthroscopy. dQCTA was performed at 5 and 45 minutes after intra-articular injection of ioxaglate. Both dGEMRIC(IV) and dGEMRIC(IA) were performed at 90 minutes after gadopentetate injection. dGEMRIC indices and change in relaxation rates (ΔR(1)) were separately calculated for dGEMRIC(IV) and dGEMRIC(IA). dGEMRIC and dQCTA parameters were calculated for predetermined sites at the knee joint that were ICRS graded in arthroscopy. RESULTS: dQCTA normalized with the contrast agent concentration in synovial fluid and dGEMRIC(IV) correlated significantly, whereas dGEMRIC(IA) correlated with the normalized dQCTA only when dGEMRIC(IA) was also normalized with the contrast agent concentration in synovial fluid. Correlation was strongest between normalized dQCTA at 45 minutes and ΔR(1,IV) (r(s)=0.72 [95% CI 0.56 - 0.83], n=49, p<0.01) and ΔR(1,IA) normalized with ΔR(1) in synovial fluid (r(s)=0.70 [0.53 - 0.82], n=52, p<0.01). Neither dGEMRIC nor dQCTA correlated with arthroscopic grading. dGEMRIC(IV) and non-normalized dGEMRIC(IA) were not related while ΔR(1,IV) correlated with normalized ΔR(1,IA) (r(s)=0.52 [0.28 - 0.70], n=50, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that dQCTA is in best agreement with dGEMRIC(IV) at 45 minutes after CT contrast agent injection. dQCTA and dGEMRIC were not related to arthroscopy, probably because the remaining cartilage is analysed in dGEMRIC and dQCTA, whereas in arthroscopy the absence of cartilage defines the grading. The findings indicate the importance to take into account the contrast agent concentration in synovial fluid in dQCTA and dGEMRIC(IA).
    Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 12/2012; · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 09/2012; · 4.53 Impact Factor