RÜSTEM BERHAN PİRİMOĞLU, HAYRİ OĞUL, GÖKHAN POLAT, Mecit KANTARCI, Akın LEVENT

The comparison of direct magnetic resonance arthrography with volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination sequence and multidetector computed tomography arthrography techniques in detection of talar osteochondral lesions

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare additive diagnostic values of magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography with volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) sequence and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) arthrography for diagnosis and grading of talar osteochondral lesions. Methods: MDCT arthrography and MR arthrography with three dimensional VIBE sequence were performed in 27 patients. Findings of MR arthrographyand MDCTarthrography images were compared with arthroscopic ﬁndings. Sensitivity, speciﬁcity, and accuracy rates were calculated for both MR arthrography and MDCT arthrography imaging ﬁndings. Results: For grade I osteochondral lesions; sensitivity, speciﬁcity and accuracy rates of MR arthrography were 95%, 73%, 90%, respectively; For grade I osteochondral lesions; sensitivity, speciﬁcity and accuracy rates of MDCT arthrography were 96%, 79%, 81%. For grade IV osteochondral lesions; sensitivity, speciﬁcity and accuracy rates of MDCTarthrography and MR arthrography were 100%. For grade II lesions, the sensitivity, speciﬁcity and accuracy rates of the MR arthrography were 80%, 76%, 77%, respectively; for grade III lesions, the sensitivity, speciﬁcity and accuracy rates of the MR arthrography were 78%, 68%, 75%. For grade II osteochondral lesions; the sensitivity, speciﬁcity and accuracy rates of the MDCT arthrography were 91%, 81%, 86%; for grade III osteochondral lesions; the sensitivity, speciﬁcity and accuracy rates of the MDCT arthrography were 90%, 83%, 89%; For grade II and III osteochondral lesions, MDCT arthrography had higher sensitivity, speciﬁcity and accuracy rates than MR arthrography. MDCT arthrography had higher diagnostic performance than MR arthrography for detection of grade II and III lesions (p ¼ 0.041 and p ¼ 0.038, respectively). Conclusion: MDCT arthrography appears to be more reliable than MR arthrography with three dimensional VIBE sequence for accurate detection and grading of osteochondral lesions.

___

Loredo R, Sanders TG. Imaging of osteochondral injuries. Clin Sports Med. 2001;20:249e278.

Naran KN, Zoga AC. Osteochondral lesions about the ankle. Radiol Clin North Am. 2008;46:995e1002

Schachter AK, Chen AL, Reddy PD, Tejwani NC. Osteochondral lesions of the talus. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13:152e158.

Cerezal L, Abascal F, García-Valtuille R, Canga A. Ankle MR arthrography: how, why, when. Radiol Clin North Am. 2005;4:693e707.

Mosher TJ. MRI of osteochondral injuries of the knee and ankle in the athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25:843e866.

Ogul H, Karaca L, Can CE, et al. Anatomy, variants, and pathologies of the superior glenohumeral ligament: magnetic resonance imaging with threedimensional volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination sequence and conventional magnetic resonance arthrography. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15: 508e522.

Ogul H, Guzel Y, Pirimoglu B, et al. The clinical and radiological importance of extraarticular contrast material leakage into adjacent synovial compartments on ankle MR arthrography in patients with OCD and anterolateral impingement. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1857e1866

Vande Berg BC, Lecouvet FE, Poilvache P, et al. Assessment of knee cartilage in cadavers with dual-detector spiral CT arthrography and MR imaging. Radiology. 2002;222:430e436.

Anderson IF, Crichton KJ, Grattan-Smith T, et al. Osteochondral fractures of the dome of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71:1143e1152.

Gagliardi JA, Chung EM, Chandnani VP, et al. Detection and staging of chondromalacia patellae: relative efﬁcacies of conventional MR imaging, MR arthrography, and CT arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;63:629e636.

Chemouni D, Champsaur P, Guenoun D, Desrousseaux J, Pauly V, Le Corroller T. Diagnostic performance of ﬂat-panel CT arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint: comparison with MDCT arthrography with gross anatomy as the reference standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203: 1069e1074.

Rand T, Brossmann J, Pedowitz R, Ahn JM, Haghigi P, Resnick D. Analysis of patellar cartilage: comparison of conventional MR imaging and MR and CT arthrography in cadavers. Acta Radiol. 2000;41:492e497.

Schmid MR, Pﬁrrmann CW, Hodler J, Vienne P, Zanetti M. Cartilage lesions in the ankle joint: comparison of MR arthrography and CT arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 2003;32:259e265.

Disler DG, McCauley TR, Kelman CG, et al. Fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo MR imaging of hyaline cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with standard MR imaging and arthroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:127e132.

Hodler J. Technical errors in MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;37:9e18.

Gückel C, Nidecker A. The rope ladder: an uncommon artifact and potential pitfall in MR arthrography of the shoulder. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168: 947e950.

Choi YS, Potter HG, Chun TJ. MR imaging of cartilage repair in the knee and ankle. Radiographics. 2008;28:1043e1059.

vanBergenCJ, de Leeuw PA, vanDijkCN. Treatment ofosteochondral defects of the talus. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:398e408.

Marlovits S, Striessnig G, Resinger CT, et al. Deﬁnition of pertinent parameters for the evaluation of articular cartilage repair tissue with high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2004;52:310e319.