Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flat-panel CT arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint: first results in vivo

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 20 March 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint to direct magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) arthrography as the reference standard.

Methods

Twenty-seven patients with specific suspicion of articular cartilage lesion underwent ankle arthrography with injection of a mixture of diluted gadolinium and iobitridol and were examined consecutively with the use of FPCT, MDCT, and 1.5 T MR imaging. FPCT, MDCT, and MR arthrography examinations were blinded and randomly evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists in consensus. In each ankle, eight articular cartilage areas were assessed separately: medial talar surface, medial talar trochlea, lateral talar trochlea, lateral talar surface, tibial malleolus, medial tibial plafond, lateral tibial plafond, and fibular malleolus. Findings at FPCT and MR were compared with MDCT assessments in 216 cartilage areas.

Results

For the detection of cartilage defects, FPCT demonstrated a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 95%, and accuracy of 96%; and MR arthrography showed a sensitivity of 69%, specificity of 94%, and accuracy of 87%. FPCT and MR arthrography presented almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.87) and moderate agreement (κ = 0.60), respectively, with MDCT arthrography. Mean diagnostic confidence was higher for FPCT (2.9/3) than for MR (2.3/3) and MDCT (2.7/3) arthrography.

Conclusions

FPCT demonstrated better accuracy than did 1.5 T MR arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint. Therefore, FPCT should be considered in patients scheduled for dedicated imaging of ankle articular cartilage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 20 March 2020

    The names of the following authors were inadvertently inverted in the original manuscript.

References

  1. Johnson VL, Giuffre BM, Hunter DJ. Osteoarthritis: what does imaging tell us about its etiology? Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2012;16(5):410–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Loughlin PF, Heyworth BE, Kennedy JG. Current concepts in the diagnosis and treatment of osteochondral lesions of the ankle. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:392–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmid MR, Pfirrmann CW, Hodler J, Vienne P, Zanetti M. Cartilage lesions in the ankle joint: comparison of MR arthrography and CT arthrography. Skelet Radiol. 2003;32:259–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. El-Khoury GY, Alliman KJ, Lundberg HJ, Rudert MJ, Brown TD, Saltzman CL. Cartilage thickness in cadaveric ankles: measurement with double contrast multi-detector row CT arthrography versus MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;233:768–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cerezal L, Llopis E, Canga A, Rolon A. MR arthrography of the ankle: indications and technique. Radiol Clin N Am. 2008;46:973–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kraniotis P, Maragkos S, Tyllianakis M, Petsas T, Karantanas AH. Ankle post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a CT arthrography study in patients with bi- and trimalleolar fractures. Skelet Radiol. 2012;41:803–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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;203:1069–74.

  8. Bauer JS, Barr C, Henning TD, Malfair D, Ma CB, Steinbach L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle at 3.0 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla in human cadaver specimens with artificially created lesions of cartilage and ligaments. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:604–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Notohamiprodjo M, Kuschel B, Horng A, et al. 3D-MRI of the ankle with optimized 3D-SPACE. Investig Radiol. 2012;47:231–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Acid S, Le Corroller T, Aswad R, Pauly V, Champsaur P. Preoperative imaging of anterior shoulder instability: diagnostic effectiveness of MDCT arthrography and comparison with MR arthrography and arthroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:661–7.

  11. Omoumi P, Rubini A, Dubuc JE, Vande Berg BC, Lecouvet FE. Diagnostic performance of CT-arthrography and 1.5T MR-arthrography for the assessment of glenohumeral joint cartilage: a comparative study with arthroscopic correlation. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:961–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jung HG, Kim NR, Jeon JY, Lee DO, Eom JS, Lee JS, et al. CT arthrography visualizes tissue growth of osteochondral defects of the talus after microfracture. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:2123–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guggenberger R, Fischer MA, Hodler J, Pfammatter T, Andreisek G. Flat-panel CT arthrography: feasibility study and comparison to multidetector CT arthrography. Investig Radiol. 2012;47:312–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Spiczak JV, Andreisek G, Alkadhi H. In vitro high-resolution flat-panel computed tomographic arthrography for artificial cartilage defect detection: comparison with multidetector computed tomography. Investig Radiol. 2013;48:614–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta R, Grasruck M, Suess C, et al. Ultra-high resolution flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, design architecture, and system characterization. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gupta R, Cheung AC, Bartling SH, et al. Flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, technology, and applications. RadioGraphics. 2008;28:2009–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guggenberger R, Morsbach F, Alkadhi H, et al. C-arm flat panel CT arthrography of the wrist and elbow: first experiences in human cadavers. Skelet Radiol. 2013;42:419–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guggenberger R, Ulbrich EJ, Dietrich TJ, et al. C-arm flat-panel CT arthrography of the shoulder: Radiation dose considerations and preliminary data on diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:454–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sonnow L, Koennecker S, Luketina R, et al. High-resolution flat panel CT versus 3.0 T MR arthrography of the wrist: initial results in vivo. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(6):3233–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Murawski CD, Kennedy JG. Operative treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1045–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Elentuck D, Palmer WE. Direct magnetic resonance arthrography. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1956–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cerezal L, Abascal F, García-Valtuille R, Canga A. Ankle MR arthrography: how, why, when. Radiol Clin N Am. 2005;43:693–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Reichardt B, Sarwar A, Bartling SH, et al. Musculoskeletal applications of flat-panel volume CT. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;37:1069–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology Department, APHM, Marseille, France

    Sarah Pagliano, David Chemouni, Daphné Guenoun, Pierre Champsaur & Thomas Le Corroller

  2. CNRS, ISM UMR 7287, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France

    Sarah Pagliano, Daphné Guenoun, Pierre Champsaur & Thomas Le Corroller

  3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Roman Guggenberger

  4. Unité de Recherche EA3279, Santé Publique et Maladies Chroniques: Qualité de vie Concepts, Usages et Limites, Déterminants, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France

    Vanessa Pauly

Authors
  1. Sarah Pagliano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Chemouni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roman Guggenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vanessa Pauly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daphné Guenoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pierre Champsaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas Le Corroller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Le Corroller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The institutional ethics committee approved the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised. The name of all the authornames except for the last author is inverted.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pagliano, S., Chemouni, D., Guggenberger, R. et al. Flat-panel CT arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint: first results in vivo. Skeletal Radiol 49, 1259–1265 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03398-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03398-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation