HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2431060294v1 243/1/180    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Saupe, N. Articles by Weishaupt, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Saupe, N. Articles by Weishaupt, D.

MR Imaging of Cartilage in Cadaveric Wrists: Comparison between Imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T and Gross Pathologic Inspection¹

¹ From the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland (N.S., T.S., D.W.); the Department of Radiology, Orthopedic University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich (C.W.A.P., M.R.S.); and the Institute of Anatomy, University of Zurich (M.M.). Received February 15, 2006; revision requested April 20; revision received June 8; final version accepted August 1. Address correspondence to N.S. (e-mail: nadja.saupe{at}balgrist.ch).

Purpose: To evaluate prospectively the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the identification of cartilage abnormalities at 3.0 and 1.5 T in cadaveric wrists, with gross pathologic findings as the standard of reference.

Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the hospital review board, and informed consent for scientific use of body parts had been provided by the subjects. Ten cadaveric wrists from nine subjects were evaluated (seven left wrists, three right; five women, four men; age range, 46–99 years; mean age, 80 years). All wrists were examined with MR imaging in a 1.5-T unit and a 3.0-T unit, with the same imaging protocol used with both systems. Imaging protocol included intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo sequences and three-dimensional gradient-recalled-echo sequences. Cartilage surfaces of the proximal and distal carpal row, including the scaphotrapeziotrapezoidal joint, were analyzed in blinded fashion by two musculoskeletal radiologists working independently and then in consensus. Open inspection of the wrists was used as the standard of reference. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. The McNemar test was used to assess differences in diagnostic assessment. Weighted values were calculated for interobserver agreement.

Results: One hundred seventy cartilage surfaces were graded. The sensitivity and specificity for cartilage lesions were 43%–52% and 82%–89%, respectively, at 1.5 T and 48%–52% and 82% at 3.0 T. Differences in assessment did not reach statistical significance (P > .99). Highest sensitivities were found in the proximal carpal row (67%–71%); lowest sensitivities were found in the distal carpal row (14%–24%). Interobserver agreement was higher for imaging at 3.0 T ( = 0.634) than at 1.5 T ( = 0.267).

Conclusion: The performance of MR imaging for the detection of articular cartilage abnormalities in the wrist depends on anatomic location. Interobserver agreement is higher for imaging at 3.0 than at 1.5 T, but diagnostic performances were not significantly different (P > .99) at either field strength.

© RSNA, 2007