Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print August 27, 2003, 10.1148/radiol.2291020988
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2291020988v1
229/1/159    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Magee, T.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Magee, T.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, D.
(Radiology 2003;229:159-163.)
© RSNA, 2003

Musculoskeletal Imaging

MR Arthrography of Postoperative Knee: For Which Patients Is It Useful?1

Thomas Magee, MD, Marc Shapiro, MD, John Rodriguez, MD and David Williams, MD

1 From the Neuroimaging Institute, 27 E Hibiscus Blvd, Melbourne, FL 32901. Received August 7, 2002; revision requested September 24; final revision received January 23, 2003; accepted February 24. Address correspondence to T.M. (e-mail: tmageerad@cfl.rr.com).

PURPOSE: To assess which postoperative patients benefit most from MR arthrography of the knee.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive MR arthrograms obtained in patients who had previous knee surgery underwent retrospective review in consensus by three radiologists after prospective reading by one of the three radiologists. Criterion on MR arthrograms for a retear was abnormal tracking of an intraarticular dilute gadolinium-based contrast material and saline mixture into the substance of a meniscus. Patients were separated into three groups: those with more than 25% meniscal resection, those with less than 25% meniscal resection, and those with meniscal repair. All 100 patients had preoperative MR images to review directly in conjunction with the postoperative MR images. Fifty-seven of these 100 patients underwent second-look arthroscopy.

RESULTS: Nine patients had MR findings consistent with avascular necrosis. Nineteen patients had marked degenerative arthrosis in the area of previous surgery. Seven patients had chondral defects or injuries. Twenty-nine patients had clear MR evidence of a meniscal retear without any contrast material injected into the joint. In 32 of the 100 patients, intraarticular contrast material was useful in demonstrating a retear. Of these 32 patients, 22 had MR arthrographic evidence of a retear, while 10 had no clear MR arthrographic finding to explain postoperative pain. Four additional patients had no clear MR imaging or MR arthrographic abnormality. All patients with meniscal repair (n = 16) needed MR arthrography to diagnose a residual or recurrent meniscal tear. No patient with less than 25% meniscal resection (n = 23) needed MR arthrography to demonstrate a residual or recurrent meniscal tear. Sixteen of 61 patients with more than 25% meniscal resection needed MR arthrography to demonstrate a residual or recurrent meniscal tear.

CONCLUSION: All patients with meniscal repair required MR arthrography. All patients with meniscal resection of more than 25%, who did not have severe degenerative arthrosis, chondral injuries, or avascular necrosis required MR arthrography. Patients with less than 25% meniscal resection did not need MR arthrography.

© RSNA, 2003

Index terms: Knee, ligaments, menisci, and cartilage, 4524.4852, 4525.4852 • Knee, MR, 4524.121411, 4524.121415, 4525.121411, 4525.121415 • Magnetic resonance (MR), arthrography, 4524.121411, 4524.121415, 4525.121411, 4525.121415




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
N. Pujol, L. Panarella, T. A. S. Selmi, P. Neyret, D. Fithian, and P. Beaufils
Meniscal Healing After Meniscal Repair: A CT Arthrography Assessment
Am. J. Sports Med., August 1, 2008; 36(8): 1489 - 1495.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
T. Moser, A. Moussaoui, M. Dupuis, V. Douzal, and J.-C. Dosch
Anterior Approach for Knee Arthrography: Tolerance Evaluation and Comparison of Two Routes
Radiology, December 1, 2007; 246(1): 193 - 197.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ImagingHome page
S Ostlere
Imaging the knee
Imaging, September 1, 2007; 19(3): 249 - 268.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
A. A. De Smet, D. M. Horak, K. W. Davis, and J. J. Choi
Intensity of Signal Contacting Meniscal Surface in Recurrent Tears on MR Arthrography Compared with That of Contrast Material.
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2006; 187(6): W565 - W568.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 radtechHome page
J. MINIGH
Imaging Sports-related Injuries
Radiol. Technol., November 1, 2005; 77(2): 121 - 138.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. R. Schmid, C. W. A. Pfirrmann, P. Koch, M. Zanetti, B. Kuehn, and J. Hodler
Imaging of Patellar Cartilage with a 2D Multiple-Echo Data Image Combination Sequence
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2005; 184(6): 1744 - 1748.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
T. R. McCauley
MR Imaging Evaluation of the Postoperative Knee
Radiology, January 1, 2005; 234(1): 53 - 61.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ImagingHome page
S Ostlere
Imaging the knee
Imaging, December 1, 2003; 15(4): 217 - 241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]