|
Arthroscopic and Low-Field MRI (0.25 T) Evaluation of Meniscus and Ligaments of Painful Knee
Harish S Lokannavar, Xiaochun Yang, Harsha Guduru
Department of MRI, Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, San Xiang Road, 1055, Suzhou 215004, Jiangsu Province, China
| Date of Submission | 04-Feb-2012 |
| Date of Acceptance | 03-Apr-2012 |
| Date of Web Publication | 23-May-2012 |
Correspondence Address:
Harish S Lokannavar
Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Department of MRI, San Xiang Road, 1055, Suzhou 215004, Jiangsu Province
China
© 2012 Lokannavar et al; This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
DOI: 10.4103/2156-7514.96539
 Abstract | | |
Objective: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an accurate, non-invasive, cost-effective technique for examination of the soft tissue and osseous structures of the knee. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of low-field MRI by comparing the results with subsequent arthroscopy. Materials and Methods: MR imaging study of 146 patients was done using 0.25 T ESTOATE G-SCAN and the sequence used were SE, FSE and GRE in all the three planes. The comparison was based on five parameters: accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Result: Our study showed high accuracy (98.08%) and negative predictive value (98.62%) for MRI in comparison with arthroscopy. Conclusion: Low-field MRI alleviates the need of arthroscopy for detection of meniscus tears and ligament tears. Keywords: Arthroscopy, ligaments, low field magnetic resonance imaging, meniscus, painful knee
How to cite this article:
Lokannavar HS, Yang X, Guduru H. Arthroscopic and Low-Field MRI (0.25 T) Evaluation of Meniscus and Ligaments of Painful Knee. J Clin Imaging Sci 2012;2:24 |
| Introduction | |  |
MRI is the examination of choice in the evaluation of internal joint structures of the knee like menisci, cruciate ligaments, and articular cartilage. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI, although variable for different individual structures, compares well with arthroscopy, which is considered the Gold Standard, especially when assessing knee injury, in appropriately identifying patients who require arthroscopic therapy. [1],[2] MRI of the knee joint has effectively replaced arthrography [3] and as the imaging modality of choice in the evaluation of both acute and chronic disorders causing pain in the knee. [4]
Low-field MRI is adequate for imaging the knee. Studies have shown that it is as effective as high-field MRI machines in evaluating meniscal tears [5],[6],[7] and ligaments especially Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL). [6],[7],[8] Low-field MRI has been readily accepted by both patients and referring clinicians. MR 0.25 T magnet is a safe and valuable adjunct to the clinical examination of the knee in preoperative planning [3],[9] and in avoiding diagnostic arthroscopy.
| Materials and Methods | | |
MRI studies of the knee were performed on 146 patients (87 females, 59 males with a history of painful knee joints) using a 0.25 T ESTOATE G-SCAN machine. The sequences used were SE, FSE, and GRE in all three planes: sagittal, coronal, and axial. The slice thickness of 4.5 mm and a 256×256 matrix were used with knee coil slightly flexed and internally rotated. The criteria for selection of patients were history of painful knee with no previous history of surgery. The study period was from January 2011 to October 2011. All patients underwent subsequent arthroscopy within the time frame of 12 days from the date of MRI examinations. Meniscus and the ligaments were Graded 1, 2, 3 [Table 1] and [Table 2]. Three radiologists analyzed all the images. We determined the reliability of magnetic resonance imaging for the medial meniscus, the lateral meniscus, the anterior cruciate ligament, and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). Five parameters were calculated: (i) accuracy - the percentage of patients for whom the diagnosis based on magnetic resonance imaging was correct, (ii) sensitivity - the percentage sensitivity - the percentage of patients in whom an arthroscopy confirmed tear preoperatively diagnosed on the basis of MRI, (iii) specificity - the percentage of patients who had no tear at arthroscopy and who had been found to have no tear on the basis of MRI, (iv) negative predictive value (NPV) - the percentage of patients who were diagnosed as having no tear on the basis of MRI and were subsequently found to have no tear at arthroscopy, and (v) positive predictive value (PPV) - the percentage of patients who were diagnosed as having a tear on the basis of MRI and were subsequently seen to have a tear at arthroscopy.
| Results | | |
The study population consisted of patients in the age group 11-78 years with a majority of the patients belonging to the age group of 40-60 years. This study also showed a female preponderance for knee pain, accounting for 59.6% of the cases. Of the 146 patients with knee pain, 45.9% were in the left knee and 54.1% were in the right knee.
In this study, 78 patients had meniscal tears with 36 belonging to anterior horn and 42 belonging to posterior horn. Of these, 38 had medial meniscal tears [Figure 1] of whom 4 had Grade 1 tear, 8 had Grade 2 tear, and 26 had Grade 3 tear. A total of 40 had lateral meniscal tears of whom 4 had Grade 1 tear, 6 had Grade 2 tear, and 30 had Grade 3 tear. In this study, 19 patients had ACL tears [Figure 2] of whom 2 had Grade 1 tear, 4 had Grade 2 tear, and 13 had Grade 3 tear. In this study 2 patients had PCL tears [Figure 3] of whom one was Grade 2 and other was Grade 3. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the above have been calculated and shown in [Table 3] and [Table 4]. | Figure 1: Sagittal view of the knee shows (a) normal meniscus, (b) medial meniscus posterior horn Grade 3.
Click here to view |
 | Figure 2: Sagittal view of the knee shows (a) normal anterior cruciate ligament, and (b) ACL tear Grade 2.
Click here to view |
 | Figure 3: Sagittal view of the knee shows (a) normal posterior cruciate ligament, and (b) PCL tear Grade 2.
Click here to view |
 | Table 3: Number of patients with true and false, positive and negative results for meniscus and ligament tears
Click here to view |
 | Table 4: Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value of MRI (as percentages) for diagnosing different types of meniscus and ligament tears
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
This study was conducted to determine the reliability and accuracy of low-field MRI diagnosis of meniscal and ligament lesions when compared to diagnostic arthroscopy. Although arthroscopy has been considered the Gold Standard in diagnosis of meniscal and ligament lesions, MRI remains a reliable, non-invasive modality, which can reduce the use of diagnostic arthroscopy. In this study on 146 patients, the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging was 97.9% for the medial meniscus, 97.2% for the lateral meniscus, 97.9% for the anterior cruciate ligament, and 99.32% for the posterior cruciate ligament. In a prospective study of 561 patients who also underwent arthroscopy, Justice and Quinn [10] reported an accuracy rate of 93% for the lateral meniscus and 95% for the medial meniscus, which was comparable to results of our study. In a retrospective study by De Smet and colleagues, on 400 MRI examinations (800 menisci), there were 83 original diagnostic errors, yielding an accuracy rate of 90%. De Smet's group also provided an analysis of causative errors. [11] Errors were classified as unavoidable errors (40%), errors related to equivocal MRI findings (21%), and interpretation errors (21%). Unavoidable errors (discordant MRI-arthroscopic correlation) were represented by 21 false-negative and 12 false-positive diagnoses. Subtle or equivocal MRI findings resulted from inter-observer differences in interpretations. Of the interpretation errors, 38% were attributed to normal MRI variants mistaken for a meniscal tear. Even in retrospective review, 6% of the meniscal tears could not be diagnosed. A small (1.5%) false-positive diagnosis attributed to healed tears [12] or tears overlooked at arthroscopy. This study emphasizes that observer variation as represented in the equivocal MRI finding category can affect MRI accuracy rates in diagnosis of meniscal tears. Other studies have minimized differences in observer performance. Increased observer experience may improve accuracy with subtle or equivocal MRI findings, including Grade 1 versus Grade 2 signal intensities, flap tears, and peripheral tears. Correlating peripheral meniscal signal intensity on sagittal MR images with coronal plane images of the corresponding menisci may reduce false-positive MR interpretations, especially in the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. Behairy et al., [13] in their prospective study of 70 patients showed 94% of accuracy in detecting ACL tears that is a little lower than in our study that showed 97.33% accuracy for ACL.
Vaz et al., [14] in their study observed sensitivity of 97.5%, and specificity of 92.5% for medial meniscus; sensitivity of 91.9%, and specificity of 93.6% for lateral meniscus; sensitivity of 99%, specificity of 95.9%, and accuracy of 96.6% for ACL; and for PCL sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 99.6%, and accuracy of 84.6% for PCL, which is comparable to the results in our study.
Khandha et al., [15] in their study of 50 patients observed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 100%, 69.27%, and 92% for medial meniscus, 87.5%, 88.23%, and 88% for lateral meniscus, 86.67%, 91.43%, and 88% for ACL and 100%, 95.83%, and 96% for PCL which is lower than the results obtained in our study. The reason for this difference has been discussed earlier.
MRI is highly accurate and helps in indentifying patients needing surgery thus avoiding diagnostic arthroscopy. [16],[17] Various previously published studies also support our view that results obtained by using low-field MRI are comparable to results with high-field MRI. [18],[19],[20],[21]
| References | | |
| 1. | Ghanem I, Abou Jaoude S, Kharrat K, Dagher F. Is MRI effective in detecting intraarticular abnormalities of injured knee? J Med Liban 2002;50:168-74. 
[PUBMED] |
| 2. | Ryzewicz M, Peterson B, Siparsky PN, Bartz RL. The diagnosis of meniscal tears: The role of MRI and clinical examination. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;455:123-33.
[PUBMED] |
| 3. | Boeve BF, Davidson RA, Staab EV Jr. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evulation of knee injuries. South Med J 1991;84:1123-7.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 4. | Chang CY, Wu HT, Huang TF, Ma HL, Hung SC. Imaging evaluation of meniscal injury of the knee joint: A comparative MR imaging and arthroscopic study. Clin Imaging 2004;28:372-6.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 5. | Cevikol C, Karaali K, Esen G, Apaydin A, Ozenci M, Senol U, et al. MR imaging of meniscal tears on low field (0.35T) and high field (1.5T) MR units. Tani Girsim Radoyl 2004;10:316-9.
|
| 6. | Cotten A, Delfaut E, Demondion X, Lapègue F, Boukhelifa M, Boutry N, et al. MR imaging of knee at 0.2T and 1.5T:correlation with surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1093-7.
|
| 7. | Rappeport ED, Mheta S, Wieslander SB, Lausten GS, Thomsen HS. MR imaging before arthroscopy in knee joint disorders? Acta Radiol 1996;37:602-9.
|
| 8. | Kam CK, Chee DW, Peh WC. Magnetic resonance imaging of cruciate ligament injuries of the knee. Can Assoc Radiol J 2010;61:80-9.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 9. | Riel KA, Reinisch M, Kersting-Sommerhoff B, Hof N, Merl T. 0.2 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of internal lesions of knee joint: A prospective arthroscopically controlled clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1999;7:37-41.
[PUBMED] |
| 10. | Justice WW, Quinn SF. Error patterns in the MR imaging evaluation of menisci of the knee. Radiology 1995;196:617-21.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 11. | De Smet AA, Tuite MJ, Norris MA, Swan JS. MR diagnosis of meniscal tears: Analysis of causes of errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:1419.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 12. | De Smet AA, Nathan DH, Garf BK, Haaland BA, Fine JP. Clinical and MR findings associated with false-positive knee MR diagnoses of medial meniscus tears. AJR Am J Rogentgenol 2008;191:93-9.
|
| 13. | Behairy NH, Dorgham MA, Khaled SA. Accuracy of routine magnetic resonance imaging in meniscal and ligamentous injuries of the knee: Comparison with arthroscopy. Int Orthop 2009;33:961-7.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 14. | Vaz CE, Camargo OP, Santana PJ, Valezi AC. Accuracy of magnetic resonance in identifying traumatic intraarticular knee lesions. Clinics 2005;60:445-50.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 15. | Khanda GE, Akhtar W, Ahsan H, Ahmad N. Assessment of menisci and ligamentous injuries of the knee on magnetic resonance imaging: Correlation with arthroscopy. J Pak Med Assoc 2008;58:537-40.
[PUBMED] |
| 16. | Munshi M, Davidson M, MacDonald PB, Froese W, Sutherland K. The efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in acute knee injuries. Clin J Sport Med 2000;10:34-9.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 17. | Elvenes J, Jerome CP, Reikeras O, Johansen O. Magnetic resonance imagining as a screening procedure to avoid arthroscopy for meniscal tears. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2000;120:14-6.
|
| 18. | Kreitner KF, Hansen M, Schadmand-Fischer S, Krummenaeur F, Runkel M. Low Field MRI of knee of the knee joint: Results of a prospective arthroscopically controlled study. Rofo 1999;170:35-40.
|
| 19. | Imhof H, Breitenseher M, Happel B, Turetschek K, Schneider B, et al. Comparison of diagnostic sensitivity in meniscus diagnosis of MRI examinations with a 0.2 T low-field and a 1.5 T high field system. Radiologe 1997;37:802-6.
|
| 20. | Kersting-Sommerhoff B, Gerhardt P, Golder W, Hof N, Riel KA, Helmberger H, et al. MRI of the knee joint: First results of a comparison of 0,2-T specialized system and 1,5-T high field strength magnet. Rofo 1995;162:390-5.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 21. | Parizel PM, Dijkstra HA, Geenen GP, Kint PA, Versteylen RJ, van Wiechen PJ, et al. Low-field versus high-field MR imaging of the knee: A comparison of signal behaviour and diagnostic performance. Eur J Radiol 1995;19:132-8.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| Authors | | |
Harish S Lokannavar
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]
|
