AJR Not a Member? Click to Join ARRS!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Disler, D. G.
Right arrow Articles by Hospodar, P. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Disler, D. G.
Right arrow Articles by Hospodar, P. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 167, 127-132, Copyright © 1996 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo MR imaging of hyaline cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with standard MR imaging and arthroscopy

DG Disler, TR McCauley, CG Kelman, MD Fuchs, LM Ratner, CR Wirth and PP Hospodar
Department of Radiology, Albany Medical College, NY 12208, USA.

OBJECTIVE. The sensitivity of fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo (SPGR) images was compared with that of standard MR images for detecting hyaline cartilage defects of the knee, using arthroscopy as the standard of reference. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. We assessed 114 consecutive patients for hyaline cartilage defects of the knee with both standard MR imaging sequences and a sagittal fat- suppressed three-dimensional SPGR sequence. Of these patients, 48 with meniscal or ligament injury, or persistent symptoms, underwent subsequent arthroscopy. The standard MR images and SPGR images of these 48 patients were then retrospectively analyzed for articular defects in a blinded fashion by two independent observers. Sensitivity, specificity, and intraobserver and interobserver agreement were determined for the different imaging techniques. RESULTS. One fourth of the patients who went on to arthroscopy were shown to have isolated hyaline cartilage lesions that were clinically confused with meniscal tears and that were missed on the standard MR images. When looking at all surfaces combined for each reader, the SPGR imaging sequence had a significantly higher sensitivity than the standard MR imaging sequences for detecting hyaline cartilage defects (75-85% versus 29-38%, p < .001 for each comparison). When looking at individual surfaces for each reader, significant differences in sensitivity were shown for each surface except the trochlear and lateral tibial surfaces. We found no difference in specificity (97% versus 97%, p > .99). We also found that combined evaluation of standard MR and SPGR images gave no added diagnostic advantage (sensitivity, 86%; specificity, 97%; p > .42). Except for the lateral tibial surface, the study achieved excellent reproducibility among readings and between readers. CONCLUSION. Fat- suppressed three-dimensional SPGR imaging is more sensitive than standard MR imaging for the detection of hyaline cartilage defects of the knee.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.