Comparison Of 3.0-T Mr Vs 3.0-T Mr Arthrography Of The Hip For Detection Of Acetabular Labral Tears And Chondral Defects In The Same Patient Population

Abstract

Objective: We report our experience in diagnostic sensitivity of 3.0-T conventional MR vs 3.0-T MR arthrography of the hip for detection of acetabular labral tears and chondral defects in the same patient population. Methods: 43 consecutive patients had both conventional hip MR and MR arthrography examinations performed. These examinations were reviewed retrospectively by independent reading of two musculoskeletal radiologists who read the MR and MR arthrogram examinations in a randomized fashion (i.e. MR and MR arthrogram examinations were read at separate sittings and in a randomized fashion so as not to bias reviewers). Scans were assessed for acetabular labral tears and chondral defects. All patients went on to arthroscopy. Results: Of these 43 patients, 40 had acetabular labral tears read by Reader 1 and 39 had acetabular labral tears read by Reader 2 on MR arthrogram, 39 had acetabular labral tears read by Reader 1 and 38 had acetabular labral tears read by Reader 2 on conventional MR examination. There were 42 labral tears in 43 patients at arthroscopy. There were four false-negative labral tears compared with arthroscopy on MR and three false negatives on MR arthrography for Reader 1 and five false negatives on MR and four false negatives on MR arthrography for Reader 2. Each reader had one false-positive labral tear compared with arthroscopy on both MR and MR arthrography. There were 32 acetabular chondral defects at arthroscopy. Reader 1 saw 21 acetabular chondral defects on conventional MR and 27 chondral defects at MR arthrography. Reader 2 saw 19 acetabular chondral defects at conventional MR and 25 acetabular chondral defects on MR arthrography. There were no false-positive readings of chondral defects compared with arthroscopy on MR and one false positive for Reader 1 and two false positives for Reader 2 on MR arthrography as compared with arthroscopy. On conventional MR examination, sensitivities and specificities as compared with arthroscopy were as follows: Reader 1 acetabular labral tear (90% sensitivity, 0% specificity) and Reader 2 acetabular labral tear (88% sensitivity, 0% sensitivity). On MR arthrogram, sensitivities and specificities as compared with arthroscopy for Reader 1 were 93%, 0% and for Reader 2 were 90%, 0%, respectively. Sensitivities and specificities for detection of acetabular chondral defects as compared with arthroscopy were Reader 1 conventional MR (65% sensitivity, 100% specificity), Reader 1 MR arthrography (81% sensitivity, 91% specificity), Reader 2 conventional MR (59% sensitivity, 100% specificity) and Reader 2 MR arthrography (71% sensitivity, 82% specificity). Conclusion: In this series, 3.0-T MR demonstrated sensitivity for detection of acetabular labral tears that rivals the sensitivity of 3.0-T MR arthrography of the hip. In this series, 3.0-T MR arthrography was more sensitive than conventional 3.0-T MR for detection of acetabular chondral defects. Advances in knowledge: 3.0-T MR and MR arthrography are near equivalent in the diagnosis of acetabular labral tears. This information is useful for pre-operative planning.

Publication Date

9-1-2015

Publication Title

British Journal of Radiology

Volume

88

Issue

1053

Document Type

Article

Personal Identifier

scopus

DOI Link

https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140817

Socpus ID

84941670920 (Scopus)

Source API URL

https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84941670920

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS