Cargando…
Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram Improves Visualization of Hip Capsular Defects in Patients Undergoing Previous Hip Arthroscopy
PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) in the identification of hip capsular defects in patients who previously underwent hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for capsular insufficiency by a single surgeon be...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9042785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35494278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2021.11.005 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) in the identification of hip capsular defects in patients who previously underwent hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for capsular insufficiency by a single surgeon between March 2014 and December 2019 were identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. Patients with arthroscopically confirmed capsular defects treated surgically who underwent both MRI and MRA between their primary and revision surgeries were identified. Imaging studies were blinded, randomized, and distributed to two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists. Radiologists evaluated 14 components of different anatomic structures, including the presence of capsular defect and defect grading, over 2 months, with a 2-week washout period between 4 sets of reads to obtain 2 complete reads from each radiologist. Data were analyzed in R version 4.0.2. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy between March 2014 and December 2019. Twelve patients had both an MRI and an MRA of the operated hip performed between their primary and revision surgeries. Time between primary and revision hip arthroscopy was 2.0 ± 1.5 years (R: .3-6.3). Time between MRI and MRA was .6 ± .6 years (R: .0-1.6). Sensitivity for detecting hip capsular defects was significantly higher for MRA than for MRI (87.5%, 95% CI: [68,96] vs 50%, 95% CI: [31,69], respectively; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective review demonstrates that MRA has higher sensitivity than MRI in detecting surgically confirmed capsular defects. MRA may be more helpful in identifying capsular defects in patients presenting with hip instability symptoms who have had a previous hip arthroscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, diagnostic case series. |
---|