Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 1721–1730 | Cite as

Diagnostic performance of direct traction MR arthrography of the hip: detection of chondral and labral lesions with arthroscopic comparison

  • Florian SchmaranzerEmail author
  • Andrea Klauser
  • Michael Kogler
  • Benjamin Henninger
  • Thomas Forstner
  • Markus Reichkendler
  • Ehrenfried Schmaranzer
Musculoskeletal

Abstract

Objectives

To assess diagnostic performance of traction MR arthrography of the hip in detection and grading of chondral and labral lesions with arthroscopic comparison.

Methods

Seventy-five MR arthrograms obtained ± traction of 73 consecutive patients (mean age, 34.5 years; range, 14–54 years) who underwent arthroscopy were included. Traction technique included weight-adapted traction (15–23 kg), a supporting plate for the contralateral leg, and intra-articular injection of 18–27 ml (local anaesthetic and contrast agent). Patients reported on neuropraxia and on pain. Two blinded readers independently assessed femoroacetabular cartilage and labrum lesions which were correlated with arthroscopy. Interobserver agreement was calculated using κ values. Joint distraction ± traction was evaluated in consensus.

Results

No procedure had to be stopped. There were no cases of neuropraxia. Accuracy for detection of labral lesions was 92 %/93 %, 91 %/83 % for acetabular lesions, and 92 %/88 % for femoral cartilage lesions for reader 1/reader 2, respectively. Interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.58) for grading of labrum lesions and substantial (κ = 0.7, κ = 0.68) for grading of acetabular and femoral cartilage lesions. Joint distraction was achieved in 72/75 and 14/75 hips with/without traction, respectively.

Conclusion

Traction MR arthrography safely enabled accurate detection and grading of labral and chondral lesions.

Key Points

The used traction technique was well tolerated by most patients.

The used traction technique almost consistently achieved separation of cartilage layers.

Traction MR arthrography enabled accurate detection of chondral and labral lesions.

Keywords

MRI Arthrography Traction Hip joint Chondral/labral lesions 

Abbreviations

FAI

femoroacetabular impingement

FLASH

fast low-angle shot

FISP

fast imaging with steady-state precession

LCEA

lateral centre edge angle

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ehrenfried Schmaranzer. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Menges Medical GmBH.The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Sutter R, Zanetti M, Pfirrmann CWA (2012) New developments in hip imaging. Radiology 264:651–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith TO, Hilton G, Toms AP, Donell ST, Hing CB (2011) The diagnostic accuracy of acetabular labral tears using magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 21:863–874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blankenbaker DG, de Smet AA, Keene JS, Fine JP (2007) Classification and localization of acetabular labral tears. Skelet Radiol 36:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sutter R, Zubler V, Hoffmann A, Mamisch-Saupe N, Dora C, Kalberer F, Zanetti M et al (2014) Hip MRI: how useful is intraarticular contrast material for evaluating surgically proven lesions of the labrum and articular cartilage? AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:160–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pfirrmann CWA, Duc SR, Zanetti M, Dora C, Hodler J (2008) MR arthrography of acetabular cartilage delamination in femoroacetabular cam impingement. Radiology 249:236–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Llopis E, Cerezal L, Kassarjian A, Higueras V, Fernandez E (2008) Direct MR arthrography of the hip with leg traction: feasibility for assessing articular cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1124–1128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Tonnis D, Heinecke A (1999) Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1747–1770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Safran MR, Hariri S (2010) Hip arthroscopy assessment tools and outcomes. Oper Tech Orthop 20:264–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Griffin D, Karthikeyan S (2012) Normal and pathological arthroscopic view in hip arthroscopy. In: Marín-Peña Ó (ed) Femoroacetabular Impingement. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (2003) The measurement of interrater agreement. In: Balding DJ (ed) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken New Jersey, pp 599–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wettstein M, Guntern D, Theumann N (2008) Direct MR arthrography of the hip with leg traction: feasibility for assessing articular cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:W206–W207, author replyCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ng VY, Arora N, Best TM, Pan X, Ellis TJ (2010) Efficacy of surgery for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 38:2337–2345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saupe N, Zanetti M, Pfirrmann CWA, Wels T, Schwenke C, Hodler J (2009) Pain and other side effects after MR arthrography: prospective evaluation in 1085 patients. Radiology 250:830–838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blankenbaker DG, Ullrick SR, Kijowski R, Davis KW, De Smet AA, Shinki K et al (2011) MR arthrography of the hip: comparison of IDEAL-SPGR volume sequence to standard mr sequences in the detection and grading of cartilage lesions. Radiology 261:863–871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martin HD, Savage A, Braly BA, Palmer IJ, Beall DP, Kelly B (2008) The function of the hip capsular ligaments: a quantitative report. Arthrosc: J Arthrosc Relat Surg 24:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris JD, McCormick FM, Abrams GD, Gupta AK, Ellis TJ, Bach BR et al (2013) Complications and reoperations during and after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of 92 studies and more than 6,000 patients. Arthroscopy 29:589–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toomayan GA, Holman WR, Major NM, Kozlowicz SM, Vail TP (2006) Sensitivity of MR arthrography in the evaluation of acetabular labral tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:449–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Czerny C, Hofmann S, Urban M, Tschauner C, Neuhold A, Pretterklieber M et al (1999) MR arthrography of the adult acetabular capsular-labral complex: correlation with surgery and anatomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:345–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mintz DN, Hooper T, Connell D, Buly R, Padgett DE, Potter HG (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the hip: detection of labral and chondral abnormalities using noncontrast imaging. Arthroscopy 21:385–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ziegert AJ, Blankenbaker DG, de Smet AA, Keene JS, Shinki K, Fine JP (2009) Comparison of standard hip MR arthrographic imaging planes and sequences for detection of arthroscopically proven labral tear. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1397–1400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmid MR, Nötzli HP, Zanetti M, Wyss TF, Hodler J (2003) Cartilage lesions in the hip: diagnostic effectiveness of MR arthrography. Radiology 226:382–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neumann G, Mendicuti AD, Zou KH, Minas T, Coblyn J, Winalski CS et al (2007) Prevalence of labral tears and cartilage loss in patients with mechanical symptoms of the hip: evaluation using MR arthrography. Osteoarthr Cartil 15:909–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson LA, Peters CL, Park BB, Stoddard GJ, Erickson JA, Crim JR (2009) Acetabular cartilage delamination in femoroacetabular impingement. Risk factors and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:305–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ellermann J, Ziegler C, Nissi MJ, Goebel R, Hughes J, Benson M et al (2014) Acetabular cartilage assessment in patients with femoroacetabular impingement by using T2* mapping with arthroscopic verification. Radiology 271:512–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Frank LR, Brossmann J, Buxton RB, Resnick D (1997) MR imaging truncation artifacts can create a false laminar appearance in cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:547–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Schmaranzer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrea Klauser
    • 1
  • Michael Kogler
    • 2
  • Benjamin Henninger
    • 1
  • Thomas Forstner
    • 3
  • Markus Reichkendler
    • 4
  • Ehrenfried Schmaranzer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMedical University InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyDistrict Hospital St. Johann in TyrolSt. Johann in TyrolAustria
  3. 3.Department for Applied Systems Research and StatisticsJohannes Keppler UniversityLinzAustria
  4. 4.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryDistrict Hospital St. Johann in TyrolSt. Johann in TyrolAustria

Personalised recommendations