Advertisement

Abbreviated MRI of the foot in patients with suspected osteomyelitis

  • Hemang M. KotechaEmail author
  • Hao S. Lo
  • Srinivasan Vedantham
  • Heeseop Shin
  • Christopher A. Cerniglia
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol of the foot for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in patients with acute foot infection.

Methods

This retrospective study evaluated adult patients (age 18 and over) visiting an academic medical center from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015 who were imaged with MRI for suspected acute pedal osteomyelitis. Examinations were performed utilizing the departmental standard protocol. All examinations were retrospectively interpreted by five radiologists under two protocols: a reference standard protocol consisting of all non-contrast sequences obtained at initial acquisition and an abbreviated protocol consisting of only coronal T1-weighted and sagittal T2-weighted fast multiplanar inversion-recovery (FMPIR) sequences. Interpretation of the two imaging subsets was separated in time by at least 6 weeks for each reader. Each examination was assigned a score to represent one of four diagnostic categories: normal; soft tissue infection without bone changes or bone changes specific to a non-infectious etiology; nonspecific bone marrow changes; or bone changes specific for osteomyelitis. Diagnostic accuracy of both protocols was determined based on clinical diagnosis and treatment of osteomyelitis, and histopathology when available.

Results

One hundred and two MRI examinations met inclusion criteria; participants ranged in age from 26 to 91 years, with a mean age of 59 years. Seventy examinations were performed for male participants (69%) and 32 for female participants (31%). Thirty-five had a confirmed diagnosis of osteomyelitis, while the remainder (n = 67) did not. An average of 6 non-contrast sequences was performed during each examination. The most common protocol (53/102 examinations) was comprised of the following 6 sequences: axial T1-weighted, axial fat-saturated proton density, sagittal T1-weighted, sagittal T2-weighted FMPIR, coronal T1-weighted, and coronal fat-saturated proton density. After patient positioning, the abbreviated protocol sequences (sagittal T2-weighted FMPIR and coronal T1-weighted) were performed in an average total of 8 min. The reference standard protocol required an average of 22 min to complete 6 sequences. Averaged across all readers, the AUC for the reference standard full protocol and the abbreviated protocols were 0.843 and 0.873, respectively. The difference in AUC between protocols was not statistically significant (p = 0.1297), with the abbreviated protocol showing a non-significantly greater AUC.

Conclusions

An abbreviated MRI protocol, including only coronal T1-weighted and sagittal T2-weighted FMPIR images, is non-inferior to standard MRI protocol for the diagnosis of acute pedal osteomyelitis. It should be considered as a diagnostic alternative for reducing imaging time and improving patient access to MRI.

Keywords

Osteomyelitis MRI Abbreviated protocol Foot infection 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Lew DP, Waldvogel FA (2004) Osteomyelitis. Lancet 364(9431):369–379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16727-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB, Pile JC, Peters EJG, Armstrong DG, Deery HG, Embil JM, Joseph WS, Karchmer AW, Pinzur MS, Senneville E (2012) 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 54:132–173.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schweitzer ME, Daffner RH, Weissman BN, Bennett DL, Blebea JS, Jacobson JA, Morrison WB, Resnik CS, Roberts CC, Rubin DA, Seeger LL, Taljanovic M, Wise JN, Payne WK (2008) ACR appropriateness criteria on suspected osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Am Coll Radiol 5(8):881–886.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2008.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mandell JC, Khurana B, Smith JT, Czuczman GJ, Ghazikhanian V, Smith SE (2018) Osteomyelitis of the lower extremity: pathophysiology, imaging, and classification, with an emphasis on diabetic foot infection. Emerg Radiol 25:175–188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-017-1564-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dinh MT, Abad CL, Safdar N (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination and imaging tests for osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 47(4):519–527.  https://doi.org/10.1086/590011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kapoor A, Page S, Lavelley M, Gale DR, Felson DT (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing foot osteomyelitis: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 167:125–132.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.2.125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ginde AA, Foianini A, Renner DM, Valley M, Camargo CA (2008) Availability and quality of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging equipment in U.S. emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med 15(8):780–783.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00192.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rankey D, Leach JL, Leach SD (2008) Emergency MRI utilization trends at a tertiary care academic medical center: baseline data. Acad Radiol 15(4):438–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Collins MS, Schaar MM, Wenger DE, Mandrekar JN (2005) T1-weighted MRI characteristics of pedal osteomyelitis. AJR 185(2):386–393.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.185.2.01850386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    American College of Radiology. ACR appropriateness criteria® suspected osteomyelitis of the foot in patients with diabetes mellitus. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69340/Narrative/. Accessed August 1, 2019
  11. 11.
    Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (1992) Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investig Radiol 27(9):723–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Obuchowski NA, Rockette HE (1995) Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: an ANOVA approach with dependent observations. Commun Stat Simul Comput 24(2):285–308.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03610919508813243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schwartz KM, Berbaum KS (2005) A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 24(10):1579–1607.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hillis SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26(3):596–619.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (2008) Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15(5):647–661.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2007.12.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yansouni CP, Mak A, Libman MD (2009) Limitations of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcers. Clin Infect Dis 48(1):135.  https://doi.org/10.1086/595556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Massachusetts School of Medicine, UMass Memorial Medical CenterWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medical ImagingUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine TucsonTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyKeck School of Medicine of the University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations