Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 12, pp 1509–1516

MRI findings of treated bacterial septic arthritis

  • Guillaume Bierry
  • Ambrose J. Huang
  • Connie Y. Chang
  • Martin Torriani
  • Miriam A. Bredella
Scientific Article

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to report the MRI findings that can be encountered in successfully treated bacterial septic arthritis.

Materials and methods

The study included 12 patients (8 male and 4 female; mean age 38 years, range 9–85) with 13 proven cases of bacterial septic arthritis. The joints involved were hip (n = 3), knee (n = 3), shoulder (n = 2), sacroiliac (n = 2), ankle (n = 1), wrist (n = 1), and elbow (n = 1). MRI examinations following surgical debridement and at initiation of antibiotic therapy and after successful treatment were compared for changes in effusion, synovium, bone, and periarticular soft tissues. Imaging findings were correlated with microbiological and clinical findings.

Results

Joint effusions were present in all joints at baseline and regressed significantly at follow-up MRI (p = 0.001). Abscesses were present in 5 cases (38 %), and their sizes decreased significantly at follow-up (p = 0.001). Synovial enhancement and thickening were observed in all joints at both baseline and follow-up MRI. Myositis/cellulitis was present in 10 cases (77 %) at baseline and in 8 cases (62 %) at follow-up MRI. Bone marrow edema was present in 10 joints (77 %) at baseline and persisted in 8 joints (62 %). Bone erosions were found in 8 joints (62 %) and persisted at follow-up MRI in all cases.

Conclusion

The sizes of joint effusions and abscesses appear to be the factors with the most potential for monitoring therapy for septic arthritis, since both decreased significantly following successful treatment. Synovial thickening and enhancement, periarticular myositis/cellulitis, and bone marrow edema can persist even after resolution of the infection.

Keywords

Septic arthritis Infection MRI 

References

  1. 1.
    Mathews CJ, Weston VC, Jones A, Field M, Coakley G. Bacterial septic arthritis in adults. Lancet. 2010;375:846–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eberst-Ledoux J, Tournadre A, Mathieu S, Mrozek N, Soubrier M, Dubost J-J. Septic arthritis with negative bacteriological findings in adult native joints: a retrospective study of 74 cases. Joint Bone Spine. 2012;79(2):156–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canvin JM, Goutcher SC, Hagig M, Gemmell CG, Sturrock RD. Persistence of Staphylococcus aureus as detected by polymerase chain reaction in the synovial fluid of a patient with septic arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36:203–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hong SH, Kim SM, Ahn JM, Chung HW, Shin MJ, Kang HS. Tuberculous versus pyogenic arthritis: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 2001;218:848–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karchevsky M, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB, Parellada JA. MRI findings of septic arthritis and associated osteomyelitis in adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:119–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bancroft LW. MR imaging of infectious processes of the knee. Radiol Clin N Am. 2007;45:931–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lefevre S, Ruimy D, Jehl F, Neuville A, Robert P, Sordet C, et al. Septic arthritis: monitoring with USPIO-enhanced macrophage MR imaging. Radiology. 2011;258:722–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erdman WA, Tamburro F, Jayson HT, Weatherall PT, Ferry KB, Peshock RM. Osteomyelitis: characteristics and pitfalls of diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1991;180:533–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Østergaard M, Edmonds J, McQueen F, Peterfy C, Lassere M, Ejbjerg B, et al. An introduction to the EULAR-OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64 Suppl 1:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson PW, Collins MS, Wenger DE. Diagnostic utility of T1-weighted MRI characteristics in evaluation of osteomyelitis of the foot. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:96–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loeuille D, Sauliere N, Champigneulle J, Rat AC, Blum A, Chary-Valckenaere I. Comparing non-enhanced and enhanced sequences in the assessment of effusion and synovitis in knee OA: associations with clinical, macroscopic and microscopic features. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19:1433–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    König H, Sieper J, Wolf KJ. Rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation of hypervascular and fibrous pannus with dynamic MR imaging enhanced with Gd-DTPA. Radiology. 1990;176:473–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghanem E, Azzam K, Seeley M, Joshi A, Parvizi J. Staged revision for knee arthroplasty infection: what is the role of serological tests before reimplantation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1699–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pääkkönen M, Kallio MJT, Kallio PE, Peltola H. Sensitivity of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein in childhood bone and joint infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:861–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kusuma SK, Ward J, Jacofsky M, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ. What is the role of serological testing between stages of two-stage reconstruction of the infected prosthetic knee? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:1002–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim H, Kim J, Ihm C. The usefulness of multiplex PCR for the identification of bacteria in joint infection. J Clin Lab Anal. 2010;24:175–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ross JS, Delamarter R, Hueftle MG, Masaryk TJ, Aikawa M, Carter J, et al. Gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging of the postoperative lumbar spine: time course and mechanism of enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;152:825–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacAdam AJ, Sharpe AH. Infectious diseases. In: Kumur V, Abbas AK, Fausto N, Aster J, editors. Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2010. p. 1246–79.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Adzamli IK, Jolesz FA, Bleier AR, Mulkern RV, Sandor T. The effect of gadolinium DTPA on tissue water compartments in slow- and fast-twitch rabbit muscles. Magn Reson Med. 1989;11:172–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boks SS, Vroegindeweij D, Koes BW, Bernsen RMD, Hunink MGM, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA. MRI follow-up of posttraumatic bone bruises of the knee in general practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:556–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Finzel S, Rech J, Schmidt S, Engelke K, Englbrecht M, Stach C, et al. Repair of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors is based on bone apposition at the base of the erosion. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1587–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Døhn UM, Ejbjerg B, Boonen A, Hetland ML, Hansen MS, Knudsen LS, et al. No overall progression and occasional repair of erosions despite persistent inflammation in adalimumab-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients: results from a longitudinal comparative MRI, ultrasonography, CT and radiography study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:252–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kowalski TJ, Layton KF, Berbari EF, Steckelberg JM, Huddleston PM, Wald JT, et al. Follow-up MR imaging in patients with pyogenic spine infections: lack of correlation with clinical features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28:693–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillaume Bierry
    • 1
  • Ambrose J. Huang
    • 1
  • Connie Y. Chang
    • 1
  • Martin Torriani
    • 1
  • Miriam A. Bredella
    • 1
  1. 1.Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations