Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Hip MRI: how useful is intraarticular contrast material for evaluating surgically proven lesions of the labrum and articular cartilage?


Sutter, Reto; Zubler, Veronika; Hoffmann, Adrienne; Mamisch-Saupe, Nadja; Dora, Claudio; Kalberer, Fabian; Zanetti, Marco; Hodler, Juerg; Pfirrmann, Christian W A (2014). Hip MRI: how useful is intraarticular contrast material for evaluating surgically proven lesions of the labrum and articular cartilage? American Journal of Roentgenology, 202(1):160-169.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of MR arthrography and conventional MRI with surgical correlation in the same patient for detecting labrum and articular cartilage defects. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Twenty-eight patients (mean age, 31.8 years) underwent MR arthrography, conventional MRI, and subsequent hip surgery, which served as the reference standard. Labrum and cartilage defects were evaluated at MRI by two independent readers. A McNemar test and kappa statistics were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS. At surgery, 31 labral tears were identified. MR arthrography had an advantage over conventional MRI for detecting labral tears at the anterosuperior quadrant (sensitivity of MR arthrography, 81% and 69% for readers 1 and 2, respectively; sensitivity of conventional MRI, 50% for both readers); this difference in performance between MR arthrography and conventional MRI was statistically significant for reader 1 (p = 0.02) but not for reader 2 (p = 0.2). Interobserver agreement for labral tears was higher for MR arthrography (κ = 0.81) than for conventional MRI (κ = 0.63). Surgery showed 31 acetabular cartilage defects and nine femoral cartilage defects. MR arthrography had an advantage over conventional MRI for detecting acetabular cartilage defects (sensitivity of MR arthrography, 71% and 92% for readers 1 and 2, respectively; sensitivity of conventional MRI, 58% and 83%), whereas there was no advantage to using MR arthrography for detecting femoral cartilage defects with statistically significant difference for the acetabular cartilage or femoral cartilage. Interobserver agreement was slightly higher for MR arthrography (κ = 0.50) than for conventional MRI (κ = 0.40) for assessing the acetabular cartilage and was almost identical for the femoral cartilage (κ = 0.62 and 0.63, respectively). CONCLUSION. MR arthrography was superior to conventional MRI for detecting labral tears and acetabular cartilage defects and showed a higher interobserver agreement. For femoral cartilage lesions, both modalities yielded comparable results.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of MR arthrography and conventional MRI with surgical correlation in the same patient for detecting labrum and articular cartilage defects. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Twenty-eight patients (mean age, 31.8 years) underwent MR arthrography, conventional MRI, and subsequent hip surgery, which served as the reference standard. Labrum and cartilage defects were evaluated at MRI by two independent readers. A McNemar test and kappa statistics were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS. At surgery, 31 labral tears were identified. MR arthrography had an advantage over conventional MRI for detecting labral tears at the anterosuperior quadrant (sensitivity of MR arthrography, 81% and 69% for readers 1 and 2, respectively; sensitivity of conventional MRI, 50% for both readers); this difference in performance between MR arthrography and conventional MRI was statistically significant for reader 1 (p = 0.02) but not for reader 2 (p = 0.2). Interobserver agreement for labral tears was higher for MR arthrography (κ = 0.81) than for conventional MRI (κ = 0.63). Surgery showed 31 acetabular cartilage defects and nine femoral cartilage defects. MR arthrography had an advantage over conventional MRI for detecting acetabular cartilage defects (sensitivity of MR arthrography, 71% and 92% for readers 1 and 2, respectively; sensitivity of conventional MRI, 58% and 83%), whereas there was no advantage to using MR arthrography for detecting femoral cartilage defects with statistically significant difference for the acetabular cartilage or femoral cartilage. Interobserver agreement was slightly higher for MR arthrography (κ = 0.50) than for conventional MRI (κ = 0.40) for assessing the acetabular cartilage and was almost identical for the femoral cartilage (κ = 0.62 and 0.63, respectively). CONCLUSION. MR arthrography was superior to conventional MRI for detecting labral tears and acetabular cartilage defects and showed a higher interobserver agreement. For femoral cartilage lesions, both modalities yielded comparable results.

Statistics

Citations

31 citations in Web of Science®
33 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
04 Faculty of Medicine > Balgrist University Hospital, Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Center
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2014
Deposited On:28 Feb 2014 15:49
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 17:21
Publisher:American Roentgen Ray Society
ISSN:0361-803X
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10266
PubMed ID:24370140

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations