Cargando…

Preoperative Measurement of Cartilage Defects by MRI Underestimates Lesion Size

OBJECTIVE: Anecdotal evidence suggests that MRI frequently underestimates the size of cartilage defects when compared with final lesion size after debridement of all degenerated tissue. This has potential implications for the choice of cartilage repair technique since most treatment algorithms are p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gomoll, Andreas H., Yoshioka, Hiroshi, Watanabe, Atsuya, Dunn, John C., Minas, Tom
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4297136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26069597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1947603510397534
_version_ 1782353110552805376
author Gomoll, Andreas H.
Yoshioka, Hiroshi
Watanabe, Atsuya
Dunn, John C.
Minas, Tom
author_facet Gomoll, Andreas H.
Yoshioka, Hiroshi
Watanabe, Atsuya
Dunn, John C.
Minas, Tom
author_sort Gomoll, Andreas H.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Anecdotal evidence suggests that MRI frequently underestimates the size of cartilage defects when compared with final lesion size after debridement of all degenerated tissue. This has potential implications for the choice of cartilage repair technique since most treatment algorithms are primarily driven by defect size. We conducted an investigation comparing size estimates based on preoperative MRI with final defect size after debridement. Our aim was to provide surgeons with more objective data to assist in predicting true defect size based on MRI scanning. DESIGN: Patients were included in this retrospective study if they had undergone preoperative MRI and open cartilage repair within 12 months to minimize potential confounding by defect progression on MRI. Defect sizes measured after debridement were obtained from surgical notes and compared with MRI size estimates by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled with a median age of 37 years, median number of 1.7 defects, and a total median defect area of 6 cm(2) per knee. Preoperative MRI scanning had predicted a median defect area of 3.6 cm(2). This reflected a difference of 65% (P < 0.001) between MRI and final defect area after debridement when 85% of all individual defects were larger than predicted by preoperative MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Our study compared the size of cartilage defects measured by preoperative MRI with surgical measurements after debridement. On average, the final total defect area per knee was 65% larger than estimated preoperatively by MRI. Individual defects were larger than predicted by 47% to 377%, depending on defect location.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4297136
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42971362015-06-11 Preoperative Measurement of Cartilage Defects by MRI Underestimates Lesion Size Gomoll, Andreas H. Yoshioka, Hiroshi Watanabe, Atsuya Dunn, John C. Minas, Tom Cartilage Original Articles OBJECTIVE: Anecdotal evidence suggests that MRI frequently underestimates the size of cartilage defects when compared with final lesion size after debridement of all degenerated tissue. This has potential implications for the choice of cartilage repair technique since most treatment algorithms are primarily driven by defect size. We conducted an investigation comparing size estimates based on preoperative MRI with final defect size after debridement. Our aim was to provide surgeons with more objective data to assist in predicting true defect size based on MRI scanning. DESIGN: Patients were included in this retrospective study if they had undergone preoperative MRI and open cartilage repair within 12 months to minimize potential confounding by defect progression on MRI. Defect sizes measured after debridement were obtained from surgical notes and compared with MRI size estimates by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled with a median age of 37 years, median number of 1.7 defects, and a total median defect area of 6 cm(2) per knee. Preoperative MRI scanning had predicted a median defect area of 3.6 cm(2). This reflected a difference of 65% (P < 0.001) between MRI and final defect area after debridement when 85% of all individual defects were larger than predicted by preoperative MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Our study compared the size of cartilage defects measured by preoperative MRI with surgical measurements after debridement. On average, the final total defect area per knee was 65% larger than estimated preoperatively by MRI. Individual defects were larger than predicted by 47% to 377%, depending on defect location. SAGE Publications 2011-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4297136/ /pubmed/26069597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1947603510397534 Text en © The Author(s) 2011
spellingShingle Original Articles
Gomoll, Andreas H.
Yoshioka, Hiroshi
Watanabe, Atsuya
Dunn, John C.
Minas, Tom
Preoperative Measurement of Cartilage Defects by MRI Underestimates Lesion Size
title Preoperative Measurement of Cartilage Defects by MRI Underestimates Lesion Size
title_full Preoperative Measurement of Cartilage Defects by MRI Underestimates Lesion Size
title_fullStr Preoperative Measurement of Cartilage Defects by MRI Underestimates Lesion Size
title_full_unstemmed Preoperative Measurement of Cartilage Defects by MRI Underestimates Lesion Size
title_short Preoperative Measurement of Cartilage Defects by MRI Underestimates Lesion Size
title_sort preoperative measurement of cartilage defects by mri underestimates lesion size
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4297136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26069597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1947603510397534
work_keys_str_mv AT gomollandreash preoperativemeasurementofcartilagedefectsbymriunderestimateslesionsize
AT yoshiokahiroshi preoperativemeasurementofcartilagedefectsbymriunderestimateslesionsize
AT watanabeatsuya preoperativemeasurementofcartilagedefectsbymriunderestimateslesionsize
AT dunnjohnc preoperativemeasurementofcartilagedefectsbymriunderestimateslesionsize
AT minastom preoperativemeasurementofcartilagedefectsbymriunderestimateslesionsize