Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

With or without? A retrospective analysis of intravenous contrast utility in magnetic resonance neurography

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

Abstract

Objective

To determine the utility of intravenous contrast in magnetic resonance neurography (MRN).

Materials and methods

A search of our PACS for MRN studies performed in 2015 yielded 74 MRN exams, 57 of which included pre- and post-contrast images. All studies were independently reviewed by 3 musculoskeletal radiologists with peripheral nerve imaging experience for presence/absence of nerve pathology, presence/absence of muscle denervation, and contrast utility score based on a 4-point Likert scale. The medical record was reviewed for demographic and clinical data.

Results

The mean contrast utility score across all readers and all cases was 1.65, where a score of 1 indicated no additional information and a score of 2 indicated mild additional information/supports interpretation. The mean contrast utility score was slightly higher in cases with a clinical indication of amputation/stump neuroma or mass (2.3 and 2.1 respectively) and lower in cases with a clinical indication of trauma (1.5). The mean contrast utility score was lowest in patients undergoing MRN for pain, numbness, and/or weakness (1.2).

Conclusion

Intravenous contrast provides mild to no additional information for the majority of MRN exams. Given the invasive nature of contrast and recent concerns regarding previously unrecognized risks of repetitive contrast exposure, assessment of the necessity of intravenous contrast in MRN is important. Consensus evidence-based practice guidelines regarding intravenous contrast use in MRN are necessary.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Howe FA, Filler AG, Bell BA, Griffiths JR. Magnetic resonance neurography. Magn Reson Med. 1992;28(2):328–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chhabra A, Williams EH, Wang KC, Dellon AL, Carrino JA. MR neurography of neuromas related to nerve injury and entrapment with surgical correlation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:1363–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thawait SK, Chaudhry V, Thawait GK, et al. High-resolution MR neurography of diffuse peripheral nerve lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(8):1365–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Andreisek G, Crook DW, Burg D, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. Peripheral neuropathies of the median, radial and ulnar nerves: MR imaging features. RadioGraphics. 2006;26:1267–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Andreisek G, Burg D, Studer A, Weishaupt D. Upper extremity peripheral neuropathies: role and impact of MR imaging on patient management. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1953–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Andreisek G, Chhabra A. MR neurography: pitfalls in imaging and interpretation. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015;19(2):94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chazen JL, Cornman-homonoff J, Zhao Y, Sein M, Feuer N. MR neurography of the lumbosacral plexus for lower extremity radiculopathy: frequency of findings, characteristics of abnormal Intraneural signal, and correlation with electromyography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(11):2154–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chhabra A. Peripheral MR neurography: approach to interpretation. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2014;24(1):79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chhabra A, Andreisek G, Soldatos T, et al. MR neurography: past, present, and future. AJR. 2011;197(3):583–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chhabra A, Zhao L, Carrino JA, et al. MR neurography: advances. Radiol Res Pract. 2013;2013:809568.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Chhabra A, Carrino J. Current MR neurography techniques and whole-body MR neurography. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015;19(2):79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chhabra A, Bajaj G, Wadhwa V, et al. MR neurographic evaluation of facial and neck pain: normal and abnormal craniospinal nerves below the skull base. Radiographics. 2018;38(5):1498–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chhabra A, Madhuranthakam AJ, Andreisek G. Magnetic resonance neurography: current perspectives and literature review. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(2):698–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Daniels SP, Feinberg JH, Carrino JA, Behzadi AH, Sneag DB. MRI of foot drop: how we do it. Radiology. 2018;289(1):9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Deshmukh S, Carrino JA, Feinberg JH, Wolfe SW, Eagle S, Sneag DB. Pins and needles from fingers to toes: high-resolution MRI of peripheral sensory mononeuropathies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(1):W1–W10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deshmukh S, Fayad LM, Ahlawat S. MR neurography (MRN) of the long thoracic nerve: retrospective review of clinical findings and imaging results at our institution over 4 years. Skelet Radiol. 2017;46(11):1531–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Deshmukh SD, Samet J, Fayad LM, Ahlawat S. Magnetic resonance neurography of traumatic pediatric peripheral nerve injury: beyond birth-related brachial palsy. Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49(7):954–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Petchprapa CN, Rosenberg ZS, Sconfienza LM, Cavalcanti CF, Vieira RL, Zember JS. MR imaging of entrapment neuropathies of the lower extremity. Part 1. The pelvis and hip. RadioGraphics. 2010;30:983–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Blumfield E, Swenson DW, Iyer RS, et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agents – review of recent literature on magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity changes and tissue deposits, which emphasis on pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49:448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Boyken J, Frenzel T, Lohrke J, Jost G, Pietsch H. Gadolinium accumulation in the deep cerebellar nuclei and globus pallidus after exposure to linear but not macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents in a retrospective pig study with high similarity to clinical conditions. Investig Radiol. 2018;53(5):278–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kanal E. Gadolinium-based contrast agents: the plot thickens. Radiology. 2017;285(2):340–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology. 2014;270(3):834–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Levine D, Mcdonald RJ, Kressel HY. Gadolinium retention after contrast-enhanced MRI. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1853–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lord ML, Chettle DR, Gräfe JL, Noseworthy MD, Mcneill FE. Observed deposition of gadolinium in bone using a new noninvasive in vivo biomedical device: results of a small pilot feasibility study. Radiology. 2018;287(1):96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pinter NK, Klein JP, Mechtler LL. Potential safety issues related to the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2016;22(5, Neuroimaging):1678–84.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ramalho J, Castillo M, Alobaidy M, et al. High signal intensity in Globus Pallidus and dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: evaluation of two linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology. 2015;276(3):836–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramalho J, Semelka RC, Ramalho M, Nunes RH, Alobaidy M, Castillo M. Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulation and toxicity: an update. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(7):1192–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Almén T, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR contrast medium safety committee guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(2):307–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang L, Niu Y, Kong X, et al. The application of paramagnetic contrast-based T2 effect to 3D heavily T2W high-resolution MR imaging of the brachial plexus and its branches. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(3):578–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 676 N St Clair St, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Alan D. Harrell, Jonathan Samet, Imran M. Omar & Swati Deshmukh

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 676 N St Clair St, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Daniel Johnson

  3. Department of Radiology, Ann & Robert H Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, 225 E Chicago Ave, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Jonathan Samet

Authors
  1. Alan D. Harrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan Samet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Imran M. Omar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Swati Deshmukh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Swati Deshmukh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harrell, A.D., Johnson, D., Samet, J. et al. With or without? A retrospective analysis of intravenous contrast utility in magnetic resonance neurography. Skeletal Radiol 49, 577–584 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-019-03321-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-019-03321-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation