Cargando…
A novel ultrasound scanning approach for evaluating femoral cartilage defects of the knee: comparison with routine magnetic resonance imaging
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess a novel ultrasound (US) scanning approach in evaluating knee femoral cartilaginous defects, compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, commonly used for knee imaging) and arthroscopy (gold standard). METHODS: Sixty-four consecutive patients (65 knees) were...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6048893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0887-x |
_version_ | 1783340185231032320 |
---|---|
author | Cao, Junyan Zheng, Bowen Meng, Xiaochun Lv, Yan Lu, Huading Wang, Kun Huang, Dongmei Ren, Jie |
author_facet | Cao, Junyan Zheng, Bowen Meng, Xiaochun Lv, Yan Lu, Huading Wang, Kun Huang, Dongmei Ren, Jie |
author_sort | Cao, Junyan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess a novel ultrasound (US) scanning approach in evaluating knee femoral cartilaginous defects, compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, commonly used for knee imaging) and arthroscopy (gold standard). METHODS: Sixty-four consecutive patients (65 knees) were prospectively evaluated between April 2010 and July 2011. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity (62.2 and 69.4%), specificity (92.9 and 90.5%), accuracy (75.4 and 78.5%), and adjusted positive (88.7 and 90.4%) and negative predictive (69.5 and 73.3%) were similar for both radiologists (weighted κ = 0.76). Furthermore, agreement between grading by US and MRI was substantial (weighted κ = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the novel US scanning approach allows similar diagnostic performance compared to routine MRI for knee cartilage defects. US is more accessible, easier to perform, and less expensive than MRI, with potential advantages of easier initial screening and assessment of cartilage defects. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13018-018-0887-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6048893 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60488932018-07-19 A novel ultrasound scanning approach for evaluating femoral cartilage defects of the knee: comparison with routine magnetic resonance imaging Cao, Junyan Zheng, Bowen Meng, Xiaochun Lv, Yan Lu, Huading Wang, Kun Huang, Dongmei Ren, Jie J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess a novel ultrasound (US) scanning approach in evaluating knee femoral cartilaginous defects, compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, commonly used for knee imaging) and arthroscopy (gold standard). METHODS: Sixty-four consecutive patients (65 knees) were prospectively evaluated between April 2010 and July 2011. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity (62.2 and 69.4%), specificity (92.9 and 90.5%), accuracy (75.4 and 78.5%), and adjusted positive (88.7 and 90.4%) and negative predictive (69.5 and 73.3%) were similar for both radiologists (weighted κ = 0.76). Furthermore, agreement between grading by US and MRI was substantial (weighted κ = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the novel US scanning approach allows similar diagnostic performance compared to routine MRI for knee cartilage defects. US is more accessible, easier to perform, and less expensive than MRI, with potential advantages of easier initial screening and assessment of cartilage defects. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13018-018-0887-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6048893/ /pubmed/30012149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0887-x Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Cao, Junyan Zheng, Bowen Meng, Xiaochun Lv, Yan Lu, Huading Wang, Kun Huang, Dongmei Ren, Jie A novel ultrasound scanning approach for evaluating femoral cartilage defects of the knee: comparison with routine magnetic resonance imaging |
title | A novel ultrasound scanning approach for evaluating femoral cartilage defects of the knee: comparison with routine magnetic resonance imaging |
title_full | A novel ultrasound scanning approach for evaluating femoral cartilage defects of the knee: comparison with routine magnetic resonance imaging |
title_fullStr | A novel ultrasound scanning approach for evaluating femoral cartilage defects of the knee: comparison with routine magnetic resonance imaging |
title_full_unstemmed | A novel ultrasound scanning approach for evaluating femoral cartilage defects of the knee: comparison with routine magnetic resonance imaging |
title_short | A novel ultrasound scanning approach for evaluating femoral cartilage defects of the knee: comparison with routine magnetic resonance imaging |
title_sort | novel ultrasound scanning approach for evaluating femoral cartilage defects of the knee: comparison with routine magnetic resonance imaging |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6048893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0887-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT caojunyan anovelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT zhengbowen anovelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT mengxiaochun anovelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT lvyan anovelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT luhuading anovelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT wangkun anovelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT huangdongmei anovelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT renjie anovelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT caojunyan novelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT zhengbowen novelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT mengxiaochun novelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT lvyan novelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT luhuading novelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT wangkun novelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT huangdongmei novelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging AT renjie novelultrasoundscanningapproachforevaluatingfemoralcartilagedefectsofthekneecomparisonwithroutinemagneticresonanceimaging |