Cargando…
MR arthrography is slightly more accurate than conventional MRI in detecting TFCC lesions of the wrist
INTRODUCTION: In case of clinical suspicion of triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) injury, different imaging techniques are used. The aim of this study was to determine whether MRA is superior to MRI and whether 3.0 T is better than 1.5 T (expresses in sensitivity, specificity and accuracy) in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Paris
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6244851/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29700613 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2215-x |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: In case of clinical suspicion of triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) injury, different imaging techniques are used. The aim of this study was to determine whether MRA is superior to MRI and whether 3.0 T is better than 1.5 T (expresses in sensitivity, specificity and accuracy) in detecting TFCC injury, using arthroscopy as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The arthroscopic and MR findings of 150 patients who underwent arthroscopy for ulnar-sided wrist pain between January 2009 and November 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: MRA was slightly more accurate compared to conventional MRI, and 1.5 T was slightly more accurate than 3.0 T. 1.5 T wrist MRA had a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 100% and accuracy of 90%; 3.0 T wrist MRA 73, 100 and 86%, resp. Conventional 1.5 T wrist MRI had a sensitivity of 71%, a specificity of 75% and accuracy of 73%. For 3.0 T conventional MRI, this was 73, 67 and 70%, resp. CONCLUSIONS: MRA seems slightly superior to conventional MRI, but one could question whether this difference in diagnostic accuracy outweighs the burden and risks of an invasive procedure for patients with its additional costs. Furthermore, we could not confirm the superiority of 3 T compared to 1.5 T. |
---|