Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proton density-weighted MR imaging of the knee: fat suppression versus without fat suppression

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

Abstract

Objective

To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of proton density-weighted imaging with and without fat suppression for detecting meniscal tears.

Materials and methods

The study involved 48 patients who underwent arthroscopy less than 3 months after proton density-weighted imaging with and without fat suppression. Sagittal images were independently reviewed by two radiologists for the presence of meniscal tears. Medial and lateral menisci were separately analyzed in terms of anterior horn, body, and posterior horn. Interobserver agreement was assessed using κ coefficients. The McNemar test was used to determine any differences between the two methods in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Arthroscopy findings were used as the diagnostic reference standard.

Results

Arthroscopy revealed 71 tears involving 85 meniscal segments: 34 medial meniscal segments and 51 lateral meniscal segments. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each radiologist were 95% (81/85), 92% (186/203), and 93% (267/288), and 93% (79/85), 93% (189/203), and 93% (268/288) when using fat-suppressed proton density-weighted imaging, and 91% (77/85), 93% (189/203), and 92% (266/288), and 91% (77/85), 93% (188/203), and 92% (265/288) when using proton density-weighted imaging without fat suppression, respectively. Interobserver agreement for meniscal tears was very high with proton-weighted imaging with (κ = 0.87) or without (κ = 0.86) fat suppression. There were no significant differences for detection of medial meniscal tears when using proton density-weighted imaging with or without fat suppression for both readers (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Fat-suppressed proton density-weighted imaging can replace proton density-weighted imaging without fat suppression for the detection of meniscal tears.

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

References

  1. Escobedo EM, Hunter JC, Zink-Brody GC, Wilson AJ, Harrison SD, Fisher DJ. Usefulness of turbo spin-echo MR imaging in the evaluation of meniscal tears: comparison with a conventional spin-echo sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1223–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mirowitz SA, Apicella P, Reinus WR, Hammerman AM. MR imaging of bone marrow lesions: relative conspicuousness on T1-weighted, fat-suppressed T2-weighted, and STIR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:215–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lim PS, Schweitzer ME, Bhatia M, et al. Repeat tear of postoperative meniscus: potential MR imaging signs. Radiology. 1999;210:183–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Magee T, Shapiro M, Williams D. MR accuracy and arthroscopic incidence of meniscal radial tears. Skeletal Radiol. 2002;31:686–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tarhan NC, Chung CB, Mohana-Borges AV, Hughes T, Resnick D. Meniscal tears: role of axial MRI alone and in combination with other imaging planes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:9–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee JH, Singh TT, Bolton G. Axial fat-saturated FSE imaging of knee: appearance of meniscal tears. Skeletal Radiol. 2002;31:384–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schafer FK, Schafer PJ, Brossmann J, et al. Value of fat-suppressed proton-density-weighted turbo spin-echo sequences in detecting meniscal lesions: comparison with arthroscopy. Acta Radiol. 2006;47:385–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jee WH, McCauley TR, Kim JM, et al. Meniscal tear configurations: categorization with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:93–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harper KW, Helms CA, Lambert 3rd HS, Higgins LD. Radial meniscal tears: significance, incidence, and MR appearance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:1429–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. De Maeseneer M, Shahabpour M, Vanderdood K, Van Roy F, Osteaux M. Medial meniscocapsular separation: MR imaging criteria and diagnostic pitfalls. Eur J Radiol. 2002;41:242–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Noyes FR, Stabler CL. A system for grading articular cartilage lesions at arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 1989;17:505–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McGibbon CA, Trahan CA. Measurement accuracy of focal cartilage defects from MRI and correlation of MRI graded lesions with histology: a preliminary study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11:483–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gold GE, Chen CA, Koo S, Hargreaves BA, Bangerter NK. Recent advances in MRI of articular cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:628–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sonin AH, Pensy RA, Mulligan ME, Hatem S. Grading articular cartilage of the knee using fast spin-echo proton density-weighted MR imaging without fat suppression. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1159–566.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Crewson PE. Reader agreement studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1391–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Delfaut EM, Beltran J, Johnson G, Rousseau J, Marchandise X, Cotton A. Fat suppression in MR imaging: techniques and pitfalls. Radiographics. 1999;19:373–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. De Maeseneer M, Shahabpour M, Vanderdood K, Van Roy F, Osteaux M. Medial meniscocapsular separation: MR imaging criteria and diagnostic pitfalls. Eur J Radiol. 2002;41:242–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rubin DA, Britton CA, Towers JD, Harner CD. Are MR imaging signs of meniscocapsular separation valid? Radiology. 1996;201:829–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yoshioka H, Stevens K, Hargreaves BA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage of the knee: comparison between fat-suppressed three-dimensional SPGR imaging, fat-suppressed FSE imaging, and fat-suppressed three-dimensional DEFT imaging, and correlation with arthroscopy. J Mag Reson Imaging. 2004;20:857–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Potter HG, Linklater JM, Allen AA, Hannafin JA, Haas SB. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage in the knee. An evaluation with use of fast-spin-echo imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:1276–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mohr A. The value of water-excitation 3D FLASH and fat-saturated PDw TSE MR imaging for detecting and grading articular cartilage lesions of the knee. Skeletal Radiol. 2003;32:396–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Saadat E, Jobke B, Chu B, et al. Diagnostic performance of in vivo 3-T MRI for articular cartilage abnormalities in human osteoarthritic knees using histology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2292–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sonin AH, Pensy RA, Mulligan ME, Hatem S. Grading articular cartilage of the knee using fast spin-echo proton density-weighted MR imaging without fat suppression. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1159–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gagliardi JA, Chung EM, Chandnani VP, et al. Detection and staging of chondromalacia patellae: relative efficacies of conventional MR imaging, MR arthrography, and CT arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;163:629–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements of funding and grants

Nothing to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

    So-Yeon Lee, Won-Hee Jee & Sun Ki Kim

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

    Jung-Man Kim

  3. Diagnostic Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, 505 Banpo-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, South Korea

    Won-Hee Jee

Authors
  1. So-Yeon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Won-Hee Jee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sun Ki Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jung-Man Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Won-Hee Jee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, SY., Jee, WH., Kim, S.K. et al. Proton density-weighted MR imaging of the knee: fat suppression versus without fat suppression. Skeletal Radiol 40, 189–195 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-010-0969-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-010-0969-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation