Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Musculoskeletal Imaging

    Assessment of Knee Cartilage in Cadavers with Dual-Detector Spiral CT Arthrography and MR Imaging

    Published Online:Feb 1 2002https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2222010597

    Abstract

    PURPOSE: To assess dual-detector spiral CT arthrography in the evaluation of the entire knee cartilage obtained from cadavers.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent observers characterized articular cartilage in 12 cadaver knees in which MR imaging and dual-detector spiral CT arthrography were performed and compared their findings to those found during macroscopic assessment. The sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging and spiral CT arthrography for detecting grade 2A or higher and grade 2B or higher cartilage lesions, the Spearman correlation coefficient between arthrographic and macroscopic grading, and κ statistics for assessing interobserver reproducibility were determined.

    RESULTS: At spiral CT arthrography, sensitivities and specificities ranged between 80% and 88% for the detection of grade 2A or higher cartilage lesions and ranged between 85% and 94% for the detection of grade 2B or higher cartilage lesions. At MR imaging, sensitivities and specificities ranged between 78% and 86% and between 76% and 91% for the detection of grade 2A or higher and grade 2B or higher cartilage lesions, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients between spiral CT arthrography or MR imaging and macroscopic grading of articular surfaces were 0.797 and 0.702, respectively.

    CONCLUSION: Dual-detector spiral CT arthrography of the knee is a valuable method for the assessment of open cartilage lesions of the entire knee.

    References

    • 1 Hodler J, Resnick D. Current status of imaging of articular cartilage. Skeletal Radiol 1996; 25:703-709. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2 McCauley TR, Disler DG. MR imaging of articular cartilage. Radiology 1998; 209:629-640. Link, Google Scholar
    • 3 Peterfy CG, Genant HK. Emerging applications of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of articular cartilage. Radiol Clin North Am 1996; 34:195-213. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 4 Kneeland B. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage. Semin Roentgenol 2000; 35:249-255. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 5 Boven F, Bellemans M, Geurts J, De Boeck H, Potvliege R. The value of computed tomography scanning in chondromalacia patellae. Skeletal Radiol 1982; 8:183-185. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 6 Handelberg F, Shahabpour M, Casteleyn PP. Chondral lesions of the patella evaluated with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 1990; 6:24-29. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 7 Ihara H. Double-contrast CT arthrography of the cartilage of the patellofemoral joint. Clin Orthop 1985; 198:50-55. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 8 Conway WF, Hayes CW, Loughran T, et al. Cross-sectional imaging of the patellofemoral joint and surroundings structures. RadioGraphics 1991; 11:195-217. Link, Google Scholar
    • 9 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; 163:629-636. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 10 Daenen BR, Ferrara MA, Marcelis S, Dondelinger RF. Evaluation of patellar cartilage surface lesions: comparison of CT arthrography and fat-suppressed FLASH 3D MR imaging. Eur Radiol 1998; 8:981-985. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 11 Rand T, Brossman J, Pedowitz R, Ahn JM, Haghigi P, Resnick D. Analysis of patellar cartilage: comparison of conventional MR imaging and MR and CT arthrography in cadavers. Acta Radiol 2000; 41:492-497. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 12 Berland LL, Smith JK. Multidetector-array CT: once again, technology creates new opportunities. Radiology 1998; 209:327-329. Link, Google Scholar
    • 13 Liang Y, Kruger RA. Dual-slice spiral versus single-slice spiral scanning: comparison of the physical performance of two computed tomography scanners. Med Phys 1996; 23:205-220. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 14 Vande Berg BC, Lecouvet FE, Poilvache P, et al. Dual-detector spiral CT arthrography of the knee: accuracy for detection of meniscal abnormalities and unstable meniscal tears. Radiology 2000; 216:851-857. Link, Google Scholar
    • 15 Berland LL, ed. Practical CT technology In: Routine scan factors. New York, NY: Raven, 1987; 56-72. Google Scholar
    • 16 Brink JA, Heiken JP, Wang G, McEnery KW, Schlueter FJ, Vannier MW. Spiral (helical) CT: principles and technical considerations. RadioGraphics 1994; 14:887-893. Link, Google Scholar
    • 17 Brink JA, Davros WJ, Pennington J, Englis MR, eds. Helical/spiral CT: a practical approach In: Helical/spiral CT: technical principles. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1995; 1-26. Google Scholar
    • 18 Meachim G, Fergie IA. Morphological patterns of articular cartilage fibrillation. J Pathol 1975; 115:231-240. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 19 Noyes FR, Stabler Craig L. A system for grading articular cartilage lesions at arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 1989; 17:505-513. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 20 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159-174. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 21 Dwyer AJ. Matchmaking and McNemar in the comparison of diagnostic modalities. Radiology 1991; 178:328-330. Link, Google Scholar
    • 22 Cohen A. Comparison of correlated correlations. Stat Med 1989; 8:1485-1495. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 23 Wang G, Vannier MW. Stair-step artifacts in three-dimensional helical CT: an experimental study. Radiology 1994; 191:79-83. Link, Google Scholar
    • 24 Disler DG, McCauley TR, Kelman CG, et al. Fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo MR imaging of hyaline cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with standard MR imaging and arthroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:127-132. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 25 Potter HG, Linklater JM, Allen AA, Hannafin JA, Haas SB. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80:1276-1284. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 26 van Leersum M, Schweitzer ME, Gannon F, Vinitski S, Finkel G, Mitchell DG. Thickness of patellofemoral articular cartilage as measured on MR imaging: sequence comparison of accuracy, reproducibility, and interobserver variation. Skeletal Radiol 1995; 24:431-435. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 27 Bredella MA, Tirman PF, Peterfy CG, et al. Accuracy of T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR imaging with fat saturation in detecting cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with arthroscopy in 130 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172:1073-1080. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 28 Kramer J, Recht MP, Imhof H, Stiglbauer R, Engel A. Postcontrast MR arthrography in assessment of cartilage lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994; 18:218-224. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 29 Trattnig S, Huber M, Breitenseher MJ, et al. Imaging articular cartilage defects with 3D fat-suppressed echo planar imaging: comparison with conventional 3D fat-suppressed gradient echo sequence and correlation with histology. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998; 22:8-14. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 30 van Leersum M, Schweitzer ME, Gannon F, Finkel G, Vinitski S, Mitchell DG. Chondromalacia patellae: an in vitro study. Skeletal Radiol 1996; 25:727-732. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 31 Rose PM, Demlow TA, Szumowski J, Quinn SF. Chondromalacia patellae: fat-suppressed MR imaging. Radiology 1994; 193:437-440. Link, Google Scholar
    • 32 Ahn JM, Kwak SM, Kang HS, et al. Evaluation of patellar cartilage in cadavers with a low-field-strength extremity-only magnet: comparison of MR imaging sequences, with macroscopic findings as the standard. Radiology 1998; 208:57-62. Link, Google Scholar
    • 33 Rubenstein JD, Li JG, Majumdar S, Henkelman RM. Image resolution and signal-to-noise ratio requirements for MR imaging of degenerative cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169:1089-1096. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 34 Brossmann J, Frank LR, Pauly JM, et al. Short echo time projection reconstruction MR imaging of cartilage: comparison with fat-suppressed spoiled GRASS and magnetization transfer contrast MR imaging. Radiology 1997; 203:501-507. Link, Google Scholar
    • 35 Uhl M, Allmann KH, Tauer U, et al. Comparison of MR sequences in quantifying in vitro cartilage degeneration in osteoarthritis of the knee. Br J Radiol 1998; 71:291-296. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 36 Seo GS, Aoki J, Moriya H, et al. Hyaline cartilage: in vivo and in vitro assessment with magnetization transfer imaging. Radiology 1996; 201:525-530. Link, Google Scholar
    • 37 Chandnani VP, Ho C, Chu P, Trudell D, Resnick D. Knee hyaline cartilage evaluated with MR imaging: a cadaveric study involving multiple imaging sequences and intraarticular injection of gadolinium and saline solution. Radiology 1991; 178:557-561. Link, Google Scholar
    • 38 Recht MP, Piraino DW, Paletta GA, Schils JP, Belhobek GH. Accuracy of fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo flash MR imaging in the detection of patellofemoral articular cartilage abnormalities. Radiology 1996; 198:209-212. Link, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Published in print: Feb 2002