Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 12, pp 1581–1585 | Cite as

MRI-based volumetric assessment of joint effusion in knee osteoarthritis using proton density-weighted fat-suppressed and T1-weighted contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed sequences

  • Samer Habib
  • Ali Guermazi
  • Al Ozonoff
  • Daichi Hayashi
  • Michel D. Crema
  • Frank W. RoemerEmail author
Technical Report

Introduction

Osteoarthritic joints regularly show evidence of synovial activation even in the early stages of the disease [1, 2]. Synovial activation in osteoarthritis (OA) is reflected as synovial thickening and joint effusion on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The amount of synovitis appears to correlate with pain and may be a marker of structural change and clinical outcome [3, 4].

To date, semiquantitative MRI assessment of synovitis in large studies of OA is usually performed on nonenhanced sagittal fluid-sensitive fat-suppressed (fs) sequences [5, 6]. Joint effusion is commonly assessed on axial fluid-sensitive images, where fluid-equivalent signal within the joint cavity is thought to represent effusion [5, 6]. However, a recent report suggested that fluid-sensitive sequences do not able to properly distinguish between joint fluid and synovial thickening and that the amount of fluid is commonly overestimated, as both joint effusion and synovitis appear as fluid-equivalent...

Keywords

Synovitis Manual Segmentation Joint Effusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment Synovial Thickening 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflict of interest statement

The study was supported by a grant of the “Private Practice for Musculoskeletal MRI” Ulmer Landstr. 315, 86391 Stadtbergen, Germany. The funding source did not have any role in the present publication.

Dr. Guermazi has received consultancies, speaking fees, and/or honoraria (less than $10,000 each) from Facet Solutions, Genzyme, and Stryker, and (more than $10,000) from Merck Serono, and is the President of Boston Imaging Core Lab (BICL). He receives research funding from General Electric Healthcare. Dr. Roemer is Vice President and a shareholder of BICL. Dr. Crema is a shareholder of BICL.

None of the other authors have declared any possible conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Loeuille D, Chary-Valckenaere I, Champigneulle J, Rat AC, Toussaint F, Pinzano-Watrin A, et al. Macroscopic and microscopic features of synovial membrane inflammation in the osteoarthritic knee: correlating magnetic resonance imaging findings with disease severity. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:3492–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernandez-Madrid F, Karvonen RL, Teitge RA, Miller PR, An T, Negendank WG. Synovial thickening detected by MR imaging in osteoarthritis of the knee confirmed by biopsy as synovitis. Magn Reson Imaging. 1995;13:177–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hill CL, Gale DG, Chaisson CE, Skinner K, Kazis L, Gale ME, et al. Knee effusions, popliteal cysts, and synovial thickening: association with knee pain in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:1330–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ayral X, Pickering EH, Woodworth TG, Mackillop N, Dougados M. Synovitis: a potential predictive factor of structural progression of medial tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis – results of a 1 year longitudinal arthroscopic study in 422 patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13:361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peterfy CG, Guermazi A, Zaim S, Tirman PF, Miaux Y, White D, et al. Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS) of the knee in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12:177–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunter DJ, Lo GH, Gale D, Grainger AJ, Guermazi A, Conaghan PG. The reliability of a new scoring system for knee osteoarthritis MRI and the validity of bone marrow lesion assessment: BLOKS (Boston Leeds Osteoarthritis Knee Score). Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:206–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roemer FW, Javaid MK, Guermazi A, Thomas M, Kiran A, Keen R, et al. Anatomical distribution of synovitis in knee osteoarthritis and its association with joint effusion assessed on non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced MRI. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18:1269–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roemer FW, Guermazi A, Felson DT, Niu J, Nevitt MC, Crema MD, et al. Baseline effusion but not synovitis predicts cartilage loss over 30 months in subjects without tibiofemoral osteoarthritis—results from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis (MOST) Study. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;59:S72.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fotinos-Hoyer AK, Guermazi A, Jara H, Eckstein F, Ozonoff A, Khard H, et al. Assessment of synovitis in the osteoarthritic knee: comparison between manual segmentation, semi-automated segmentation and semiquantitative assessment using contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed T1-weighted MRI. Magn Reson Med 2010;64(2):604–9PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ostergaard M. Different approaches to synovial membrane volume determination by magnetic resonance imaging: manual versus automated segmentation. Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36:1166–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC, et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage. 2006;31:1116–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmid MR, Hodler J, Vienne P, Binkert CA, Zanetti M. Bone marrow abnormalities of foot and ankle: STIR versus T1-weighted contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed spin-echo MR imaging. Radiology. 2002;224:463–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pagano M, Gauvreau K. Correlation. In: Principles of biostatistics. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury, 2000. pp 398–414Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li W, Abram F, Pelletier JP, Raynauld JP, Dorais M, d’Anjou MA, et al. Fully automated system for the quantification of human osteoarthritic knee joint effusion volume using magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12:R173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murphy KP, Szopinski KT, Cohan RH, Mermillod B, Ellis JH. Occurrence of adverse reactions to gadolinium-based contrast material and management of patients at increased risk: a survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Fellowship Directors. Acad Radiol. 1999;6:656–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loeuille D, Rat AC, Goebel JC, Champigneulle J, Blum A, Netter P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in osteoarthritis: which method best reflects synovial membrane inflammation? Correlations with clinical, macroscopic and microscopic features. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009;17(9):1186–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baker K, Grainger A, Niu J, Clancy M, Guermazi A, Crema M, et al. Relation of synovitis to knee pain using contrast-enhanced MRIs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:1779–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peterfy CG, Gold G, Eckstein F, Cicuttini F, Dardzinski B, Stevens R. MRI protocols for whole-organ assessment of the knee in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006;14(Suppl A):A95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ostergaard M, Stoltenberg M, Lovgreen-Nielsen P, Volck B, Sonne-Holm S, Lorenzen I. Quantification of synovitis by MRI: correlation between dynamic and static gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and microscopic and macroscopic signs of synovial inflammation. Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;16:743–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samer Habib
    • 1
  • Ali Guermazi
    • 1
  • Al Ozonoff
    • 2
  • Daichi Hayashi
    • 1
  • Michel D. Crema
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Frank W. Roemer
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Quantitative Imaging Center (QIC), Department of RadiologyBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  2. 2.Clinical Research ProgramChildren’s Hospital BostonBostonUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Diagnostic Imaging, Ribeirão PretoRibeirão PretoBrazil
  4. 4.Division of RadiologyUniversity of São Paulo at Ribeirão PretoRibeirão PretoBrazil
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyKlinikum AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations