Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 978
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
Previous article Browse articles Next article 
SHORT COMMUNICATION
J Res Med Sci 2016,  21:52

Where does magnetic resonance imaging stand in the diagnosis of knee injuries?


1 Department of Orthopedic, Alzahra Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Orthopedic, Kashani Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Department of Orthopedic; Medical Students Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
4 Medical Students Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Date of Submission26-Jan-2015
Date of Decision18-Feb-2015
Date of Acceptance25-Apr-2016
Date of Web Publication29-Jul-2016

Correspondence Address:
Mahdi Motififard
Department of Orthopedic, Alzahra Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Sofeh Street, Isfahan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-1995.187256

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of knee injuries. Materials and Methods: Ninety-eight consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. In all patients, MRI and arthroscopy were performed and the results were compared. Results: MRI was most sensitive in the detection of medial meniscus injuries, and the highest specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) were found in the detection of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Conclusion: MRI is a valuable tool, and according to its high NPV, normal MRI can prevent unnecessary arthroscopic interventions.

Keywords: Cruciate ligaments, diagnostic value, knee injury, magnetic resonance imaging


How to cite this article:
Rastegar S, Motififard M, Nemati A, Hosseini NS, Tahririan MA, Rozati SA, Sepiani M, Moezi M. Where does magnetic resonance imaging stand in the diagnosis of knee injuries?. J Res Med Sci 2016;21:52

How to cite this URL:
Rastegar S, Motififard M, Nemati A, Hosseini NS, Tahririan MA, Rozati SA, Sepiani M, Moezi M. Where does magnetic resonance imaging stand in the diagnosis of knee injuries?. J Res Med Sci [serial online] 2016 [cited 2020 May 29];21:52. Available from: http://www.jmsjournal.net/text.asp?2016/21/1/52/187256


  Introduction Top


There are important components in the knee including medial meniscus (MM), lateral meniscus (LM), anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). Several important functions have been described for these components. [1] For instance, menisci are responsible for shock absorption, nutrition, lubrication, joint stability, distribute synovial fluid, and weight-bearing function. [2],[3] ACL and PCL stabilize the knee in its movements. [4]

Recently, there is progress in diagnostic tools and imaging technologies in the detection of knee injuries; however, arthroscopy is still the gold standard because it can provide direct visualization of the joint and its structures. [5] One of the new imaging modalities which can detect soft-tissue injuries is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In our society, there is an increasing use of MRI in the diagnosis knee injuries before arthroscopic examination and surgery.

The aim of the present study was to determine the diagnostic value of MRI in patients with knee injuries.


  Materials and methods Top


Participants and setting

This was a cross-sectional study performed at Alzahra and Kashnai Hospitals in Isfahan, Iran. During 26 months from April 2010 to June 2012, eligible participants who were individuals with chronic knee pain, popping, locking, instability, and swelling enrolled in the study. Patients were excluded from the study if any of the following criteria were present: Any contraindication for MRI, any contraindication for arthroscopy, previous joint disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, previous knee operation, and who did not show up for the follow-up.

Study protocol

In all patients who enrolled in the study, MRI was performed (Philips, Germany, 1.5 Tesla) and multiple slices were obtained with the thickness of 2 mm. Proton density, T1- and T2-weighted images in all coronal, sagittal, and axial sections were obtained.

Arthroscopies were performed using STORZ, Germany device, via two inferior parapatellar portals under general anesthesia. Arthroscopic findings were considered as the gold standard.

In both MRI and arthroscopy procedures, data about the knee injuries including MM injury, LM injury, ACL injury and PCL injury were recorded.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis were performed using statistical software (SPSS version 16.0; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for evaluation of MRI compared against arthroscopy.

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients, and the protocol of this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Grant Number: 87947).


  Results Top


Ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Eighteen patients did not show up for the arthroscopy and were excluded from the study. Eighty remained patients including 12 (15%) women and 68 (85%) men, with the mean age of 28.8 ± 4.31, were enrolled in the study.

According to arthroscopic results, 56 patients had MM tearing. The comparison of arthroscopic and MRI results showed the sensitivity of 96.42%, specificity of 20.83%, PPV of 73.97%, and NPV of 71.42%. Detailed data are shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of knee injuries

Click here to view


Twenty-three patients had LM injury, and according to the MRI results, the sensitivity and specificity were 56.52% and 96.49%, respectively [Table 1].

Forty-three patients were found to have ACL injury and the accounted sensitivity and specificity were 86.04% and 72.97%, respectively, and about the PPV and NPV, they were 78.72% and 81.81%, respectively [Table 1].

Five patients had PCL injury. MRI had the sensitivity of 40% and specificity of 97.33% for the detection of this condition [Table 1].


  Discussion Top


Our results showed that MRI was most sensitive in the detection of MM injuries; the highest specificity and NPV were found in the detection of PCL injuries. The highest PPV was observed in the detection of LM injuries.

Previous studies showed different results which can be due to the place in which the projects have been performed and vary widely between centers. [6],[7] In a study which performed in our country, the authors found highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in MRI for LM injuries. [2] In another study performed by Halinen et al., they showed that the sensitivity was higher in MM injuries and specificity was higher in LM injuries. [7]

In line with our study, a systematic review with performed by Oei et al. mentioned that MRI was more sensitive in the diagnosis of MM injuries and specificity was higher for LM. [8]

Our results showed relatively higher NPV and lower PPV which mean that normal MRI can predict normal arthroscopy procedure, but positive results in MRI do not necessarily indicate meniscal and cruciate ligament injuries. In line with our study, Rayan et al. revealed that patients with MRI results indicating MM injuries should undergo arthroscopy evaluation. [9] Another study by Elvenes et al. showed a high NPV in the detection of knee injuries and prevention of unnecessary arthroscopies. [10]

One of the most important concerns in daily practice is to select patients for arthroscopic interventions. Our data showed that rely solely on MRI findings may result in normal arthroscopy. On the other hand, normal MRI cannot rule out knee injury, particularly for MM injuries. All of these show that for selection of patients for invasive intervention, we should considered other data sources such as history and physical examination in addition to MRI findings.


  Conclusion Top


We deduce that MRI is a valuable tool for the detection of meniscal and cruciate ligament injuries. According to its high NPV, normal MRI can prevent unnecessary arthroscopic intervention. However, the importance of MRI in selecting patients for arthroscopic evaluation is not clear.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like acknowledge Vice Chancellor for Research of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences for their financial support in this project.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was performed by the financial support provided by the acknowledgment of Vice Chancellor for Research of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Grant Number 87947.

of interest


There are no conflicts of interest.


  Authors Contribution Top


ShR, MM, and MAT (study design and concepts, data interpretation, study supervision), AN and MM and NSH and SAR and MS (study design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, statistical analysis).

 
  References Top

1.
Thomson LC, Handoll HH, Cunningham A, Shaw PC. Physiotherapist-led programmes and interventions for rehabilitation of anterior cruciate ligament, medial collateral ligament and meniscal injuries of the knee in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(2):CD001354.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Navali AM, Bazavar M, Mohseni MA, Safari B, Tabrizi A. Arthroscopic evaluation of the accuracy of clinical examination versus MRI in diagnosing meniscus tears and cruciate ligament ruptures. Arch Iran Med 2013;16:229-32.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Rath E, Richmond JC. The menisci: Basic science and advances in treatment. Br J Sports Med 2000;34:252-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Imoto AM, Peccin S, Almeida GJ, Saconato H, Atallah ÁN. Effectiveness of electrical stimulation on rehabilitation after ligament and meniscal injuries: A systematic review. Sao Paulo Med J 2011;129:414-23.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Karim Z, Wakefield RJ, Quinn M, Conaghan PG, Brown AK, Veale DJ, et al. Validation and reproducibility of ultrasonography in the detection of synovitis in the knee: A comparison with arthroscopy and clinical examination. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:387-94.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Behairy NH, Dorgham MA, Khaled SA. Accuracy of routine magnetic resonance imaging in meniscal and ligamentous injuries of the knee: Comparison with arthroscopy. Int Orthop 2009;33:961-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Halinen J, Koivikko M, Lindahl J, Hirvensalo E. The efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in acute multi-ligament injuries. Int Orthop 2009;33:1733-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Oei EH, Nikken JJ, Verstijnen AC, Ginai AZ, Myriam Hunink MG. MR imaging of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: A systematic review. Radiology 2003;226:837-48.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Rayan F, Bhonsle S, Shukla DD. Clinical, MRI, and arthroscopic correlation in meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Int Orthop 2009;33:129-32.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Elvenes J, Jerome CP, Reikerås O, Johansen O. Magnetic resonance imaging as a screening procedure to avoid arthroscopy for meniscal tears. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2000;120:14-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]


This article has been cited by
1 Magnetic resonance imaging can increase the diagnostic accuracy in symptomatic meniscal repair patients
Emilie Faunø,Ole Gade Sørensen,Torsten Grønbech Nielsen,Martin Lind,Claus Tvedesøe
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Previous article  Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Authors Contribution
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1111    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded107    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal