MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0,2 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) imaging

Loew, R.; Kreitner, K.-F.; Runkel, M.; Zoellner, J.; Thelen, M.

doi:10.1007/s003300051050

Cited by 41 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In musculoskeletal studies, low-field MRI may provide a cheaper alternative to the more expensive mid-and high-field MR systems [13,14,15]. The results of our study show that Vsm (E-MRI) was significantly correlated with and did not differ significantly from Vsm (high-field MRI) independently of Gd.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 36%

MRI of the arthritic small joints: comparison of extremity MRI (0.2 T) vs high-field MRI (1.5 T)

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic capabilities of extremity MRI (E-MRI) with high-field MRI in arthritic small joints, and to evaluate the patients' acceptance and perceptions of the two MR systems. One hundred three patients (group 1 = 28 patients with RA < 3 years, group 2 = 25 patients with reactive and psoriatic arthritis and mixed connective tissue disease, group 3 = 25 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) more than 3 years and group 4 = 25 patients with arthralgia) underwent dedicated E-MRI and high-field MRI of the wrist and finger joints. Coronal short tau inversion recovery and transversal 3D T1-weighted images before and after gadodiamide (Gd) were performed in both cases to outline the volume of the synovial membrane (Vsm) and to evaluate joints with enhancement, effusion, bone edema, and erosions. Investigators blinded to the clinical findings evaluated the images. Patients' compliance and acceptance of E-MRI and high-field MRI were evaluated. The median Vsm obtained on E-MRI did not differ significantly from that obtained on high-field MRI. Vsm = 1 ml (E-MRI) and 1.1 ml (high-field MRI) before Gd and Vsm = 0.1 ml (E-MRI) and 0 ml (high-field MRI) after Gd (Wilcoxon test, p > 0.05). The difference in agreement was 8% for joint enhancement, 2% for joint effusion, 3% for bone edema, and 4% for bone erosions. Of the patients, 64% preferred E-MRI due to more comfortable positioning and less claustrophobia and noise. Extremity MRI of the small arthritic joints is comparable to high-field MRI and more readily accepted than high-field MRI by this patient group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 36%

MRI of the arthritic small joints: comparison of extremity MRI (0.2 T) vs high-field MRI (1.5 T)

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When compared with high-field imaging, the same working group found that overall image quality was rated significantly lower with low-field imaging [20]. Again, there was excellent or substantial agreement between two readers with respect to image quality and motion artifacts for both systems (κ=0.89 and 0.87 for highfield imaging, κ=0.79 and 0.67 for low-field imaging, respectively).…”

Section: Image Qualitymentioning

confidence: 81%

Low-field MR arthrography of the shoulder joint: technique, indications, and clinical results

et al. 2003

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Again, this may be related to the particular surgical technique, arthroscopic criteria, or patient population associated with this particular site. Several studies have reported that the use of intraarticular contrast improves the diagnostic capabilities of MR imaging for the glenoid labrum when compared to conventional MR imaging (7,15,16,(32)(33)(34)(35)(36). Therefore, the possibility exists that MR arthrography performed with the extremity MR system may result in increased sensitivity and specificity for tears of the glenoid labrum.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the possibility exists that MR arthrography performed with the extremity MR system may result in increased sensitivity and specificity for tears of the glenoid labrum. In fact, Loew et al (35) reported that, when using MR arthrography, low-field (0.2 Tesla) MR imaging compared favorably to high-field MR imaging in the detection of major abnormalities of the glenohumeral joint. For labral pathologies, the sensitivity and specificity were 100 and 93%, respectively (35).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, Loew et al (35) reported that, when using MR arthrography, low-field (0.2 Tesla) MR imaging compared favorably to high-field MR imaging in the detection of major abnormalities of the glenohumeral joint. For labral pathologies, the sensitivity and specificity were 100 and 93%, respectively (35). Furthermore, according to Kreitner et al (36), the use of low-field MR arthrography of the shoulder allows for sufficient evaluation of intra-and extra-articular structures in the detection of major abnormalities, such as glenohumeral instability or rotator cuff disease.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using an extremity MR system: MR results compared to surgical findings from a multi‐center study

Zlatkin¹,

Hoffman²,

Shellock

2004

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To conduct a multi-center assessment of the use of a 0.2-T, extremity MR system (E-scan; General Electric Lunar Corp. and Esaote, Genoa, Italy) for identifying tears of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum. Materials and Methods:A retrospective study was performed involving 160 patients (age range, 15-84 years old) from five facilities in the United States, comparing shoulder MR imaging to surgical findings. MR imaging of the shoulder was conducted as follows: shoulder coil; T1-weighted spin echo, coronal-oblique and axial images; short Tau inversion recovery (STIR), coronal-oblique images and axial images; and T2-weighted spin echo, coronal-oblique and sagittal-oblique images. The MR examinations were interpreted in an independent, prospective manner by two radiologists with extensive musculoskeletal MRI experience. Arthroscopic (N ϭ 103) or open surgical (N ϭ 57) procedures were performed within a mean of 53 days after MR imaging.Results: Surgical findings demonstrated rotator cuff tears in 131 patients and labral tears in 60 patients. For the rotator cuff, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 90%, 93%, 98%, and 68%, respectively. For the labrum, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 55%, 100%, 100%, and 82%, respectively. Conclusions:There was good agreement when MR results obtained using the extremity MR system were compared to surgical findings for identifying rotator cuff tears, while the sensitivity of MR imaging for determining labral tears was relatively poor. Nevertheless, these findings were comparable to those reported in the peer-reviewed literature for MR systems operating at mid-, and high-field-strengths. MAGNETIC RESONANCE (MR) IMAGING is regarded as a useful and accurate technique for diagnosing shoulder disorders, including rotator cuff disease and lesions of the glenoid labrum (1-16). MR imaging of the shoulder has been predominantly performed by using wholebody MR systems operating at high-field-strengths (1.0 -1.5 Tesla) or, more recently, utilizing low-fieldstrength (0.2-0.35 Tesla) scanners (1-16). In 2001, Shellock et al (3) studied the diagnostic capabilities of an extremity MR system for identifying shoulder pathology. This investigation compared MR examinations to surgical findings in 47 patients and reported good agreement with regard to determining tears of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum. In fact, the diagnostic performance of the extremity MR system was reported to compare favorably to that of whole-body, mid-and high-field-strength MR scanners for a variety of musculoskeletal applications (17,18).Performing MR examinations of the shoulder using the extremity MR system offers distinct advantages over conventional MR systems, including reduced start-up costs, more convenient siting and installation, lower maintenance fees, and greater patient comfort and safety (17,18). Importantly, these advantageous features permit the extremity MR system to be readily utilized...

show abstract

MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0,2 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) imaging

Cited by 41 publications

References 33 publications

MRI of the arthritic small joints: comparison of extremity MRI (0.2 T) vs high-field MRI (1.5 T)

MRI of the arthritic small joints: comparison of extremity MRI (0.2 T) vs high-field MRI (1.5 T)

Low-field MR arthrography of the shoulder joint: technique, indications, and clinical results

Assessment of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using an extremity MR system: MR results compared to surgical findings from a multi‐center study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About