Direct magnetic resonance arthrography

Elentuck, Dmitry; Palmer, William E.

doi:10.1007/s00330-004-2449-3

Cited by 68 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…MR arthrography is increasingly important for preoperative assessment of the hip joint in such abnormalities [20], and an increasing number of commonly young and physically active patients are examined for suspected labral or cartilaginous lesions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective evaluation of two different injection techniques for MR arthrography of the hip

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to evaluate prospectively the technical feasibility and discomfort of two different injection techniques for MR arthrography of the hip. Sixty-one consecutive patients undergoing MR arthrography of the hip (68 hips) were randomly injected either at the femoral head (36 hips) or the femoral neck (32 hips). The patients rated discomfort during and 0-72 h after arthrography using a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0="did not feel anything", 100="unbearable"). The volume injected, the distance between the needle tract and the neurovascular bundle, the duration of the procedure and the extra-articular contrast leakage were measured. No significant differences were found for the volume injected, the distance between the needle tract and the neurovascular bundle, or the procedure duration. Volume of extra-articular contrast leakage was statistically significantly different (head 1±2 cm 3 , neck 3±5 cm 3 , P=0.024). The VAS score for needle advancement was significantly different (head 25±20, neck 19±23, P=0.031). No significant differences were found for the VAS score regarding delayed discomfort. Before the examination the arthrography-related discomfort was overestimated by 74% (50/68), correctly anticipated by 22% (15/68) and underestimated by 4% (3/68) of the patients. MR-related discomfort was overestimated by 32% (22/68), correctly anticipated by 57% (39/68) and underestimated by 10% (7/68) of the patients. Both hip puncture techniques were well tolerated. The neck injection technique produced less discomfort and was associated with greater extra-articular contrast leakage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective evaluation of two different injection techniques for MR arthrography of the hip

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is very important to use all ultrasound anatomical landmarks. Puncture technique was performed according the radiologist experience and sometimes using a similar technique as in CT or MR arthrography [8]. Local skin anesthesia was performed almost in all procedures, particularly in the synovial biopsy.…”

Section: Patient Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

US-guided interventional joint procedures in patients with rheumatic diseases—When and how we do it?

Gonçalves

Ambrósio

Serra

et al. 2011

European Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tObjective: To describe the main indications and the technical steps to perform ultrasound guided procedures in patients with rheumatic diseases. To access procedures accuracy, safety and effectiveness. Materials and methods: 27 patients with pain related to articular complications of rheumatic diseases and according to previous radiographic or US exam were submitted to several US-guided procedures. 42% of patients (n = 11) had rheumatoid arthritis, 11% (n = 3) spondyloarthropathies, 18% (n = 5) psoriatic arthritis, 15% (n = 4) undifferentiated arthritis, 3% (n = 1) Sjögren syndrome and 11% (n = 3) had gout.Described procedures are synovial biopsies, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids, radiation synovectomy and synovial cysts drainage procedures. When a therapeutical procedure was made, patients were evaluated by 2 rheumatologists.Corticosteroids used were Prednisolone and Triamcinolone. Yttrium-90 was used for synovectomy. Results: In all cases success was achieved with correct needle placement inside the joint. After injection/aspiration symptoms successfully solved with all patients improving their health status. No complications were recorded during follow-up period. Conclusions: US-guidance is very reliable to afford a safety procedure always checking the injection, biopsy or aspiration. Guided-biopsy has high success rates obtaining several samples. Thus is also possible to use more powerful/long acting therapeutic drugs aggressive to extra-articular structures avoiding complications.

show abstract

“…9,10 Most cartilage injuries involve the surface of the articular cartilage and good cartilage surface visibility requires adequate separation of articular cartilage surfaces. 8 Such separation is not always attainable with standard MRA, as intraarticular contrast injection, while distending the joint and articular recesses, does not necessarily distract opposing cartilage surfaces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 Such separation is not always attainable with standard MRA, as intraarticular contrast injection, while distending the joint and articular recesses, does not necessarily distract opposing cartilage surfaces. [8][9][10] To take full advantage of intra-articular contrast injection, performing MRA with traction should allow better separation of opposing articular cartilages and thus improve cartilage visibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%