Arthrography - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab


Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Arthrography

The Experts below are selected from a list of 13629 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Arthrography – Free Register to Access Experts & Abstracts

Frédéric Lecouvet – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • diagnostic performance of ct Arthrography and 1 5t mr Arthrography for the assessment of glenohumeral joint cartilage a comparative study with arthroscopic correlation
    European Radiology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Patrick Omoumi, Bruno Vande Berg, Jean-emile Dubuc, Alexandra Rubini, Frédéric Lecouvet

    Abstract:

    Purpose
    To compare the diagnostic performance of multi-detector CT Arthrography (CTA) and 1.5-T MR Arthrography (MRA) in detecting hyaline cartilage lesions of the shoulder, with arthroscopic correlation.

    Free Register to Access Article

  • Evaluation of rotator cuff tendon tears: comparison of multidetector CT Arthrography and 1.5-T MR Arthrography.
    Radiology, 2012
    Co-Authors: Patrick Omoumi, Bruno Vande Berg, Anne-catherine Bafort, Jean-emile Dubuc, Jacques Malghem, Frédéric Lecouvet

    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomographic (CT) Arthrography and 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) Arthrography in the evaluation of rotator cuff lesions, with arthroscopic correlation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional ethical committee, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. CT and MR arthrographic images prospectively obtained in 56 consecutive patients, following the same arthrographic procedure, were independently evaluated by two radiologists. Arthroscopy, performed within 1 month of the imaging, was used as the reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity of CT and MR Arthrography were compared by using the McNemar test. Interobserver and intertechnique agreement for detecting rotator cuff lesions were measured and compared with κ and Z statistics. The Bland-Altman method was used to determine interobserver and intertechnique agreement for measuring tendon tears. For grading fatty infiltration of rotator cuff muscles, κ and Z statistics were used. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity and specificity between CT Arthrography and MR Arthrography in depiction of rotator cuff lesions. The respective sensitivity and specificity of CT Arthrography were 92% and 93%-97% for the supraspinatus, 100% and 77%-79% for the infraspinatus, 75%-88% and 85%-90% for the subscapularis, and 55%-65% and 100% for the biceps tendon. The respective sensitivity and specificity of MR Arthrography were 96% and 83%-93% for the supraspinatus, 88%-100% and 81%-83% for the infraspinatus, 75%-88% and 90%-100% for the subscapularis, and 65%-85% and 100% for the biceps tendon. Interobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect (κ = 0.744-0.964 for CT Arthrography; κ = 0.641-0.893 for MR Arthrography), and intertechnique agreement was almost perfect (κ > 0.819). CT and MR Arthrography both yielded moderate interobserver and intertechnique agreement for measuring rotator cuff tears and grading muscle fatty infiltration. CONCLUSION: Data suggest that CT and MR Arthrography have similar diagnostic performance for the evaluation of rotator cuff tendon tears

    Free Register to Access Article

  • Value of CT Arthrography in the Assessment of Cartilage Pathology
    Cartilage Imaging, 2011
    Co-Authors: Patrick Omoumi, Bruno Vande Berg, Frédéric Lecouvet

    Abstract:

    Intraarticular contrast material has long been used to delineate cartilage lesions with X-rays. The first reports of Arthrography date back to 1905 [1]. Attempts were made to overcome the inherent limitations of Arthrography (due to the projection of three-dimensional structures on a plane), using tomographic techniques [2] and various projections [3]. The advent of computed tomography (CT) enabled Arthrography to develop further. First reported in 1979 for the study of cruciate ligaments [4], computed tomographic Arthrography (CT Arthrography) was very early proved to be useful for the study of cartilage [5–7]. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now considered to be the technique of choice for the assessment of the structure of cartilage (including biochemical analysis) and intrachondral lesions [8, 9], CT Arthrography gained new interest with the advent of multidetector computer tomography (MDCT). This technique provides true isotropic imaging, with the possibility of high-resolution multiplanar reformatting [10]. It thus allows the evaluation of the entire joint cartilage and not only of cartilage areas perpendicular to the acquisition plane as with conventional CT Arthrography [11]. In comparison to magnetic resonance imaging Arthrography (MR Arthrography), studies have shown that CT Arthrography is at least as accurate, sensitive, and specific for the evaluation of cartilage thickness [12, 13], surface cartilage lesions, and cartilage loss [14, 15]. CT Arthrography is indicated for the study of joint surfaces whenever MR Arthrography cannot be ­performed, either because it is less available as in some countries, or contraindicated, or technically impossible (e.g., with obese or claustrophobic patients; presence of metallic hardware) [16]. Its main drawbacks remain, however, the exposition to ionizing radiation and the need for a joint puncture.

    Free Register to Access Article

Pierre Champsaur – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Flat-panel CT Arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint: first results in vivo
    Skeletal Radiology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Sarah Pagliano, David Chemouni, Roman Guggenberger, Vanessa Pauly, Daphné Guenoun, Pierre Champsaur, Thomas Le Corroller

    Abstract:

    Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) Arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint to direct magnetic resonance (MR) Arthrography using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) Arthrography as the reference standard. Methods Twenty-seven patients with specific suspicion of articular cartilage lesion underwent ankle Arthrography with injection of a mixture of diluted gadolinium and iobitridol and were examined consecutively with the use of FPCT, MDCT, and 1.5  T MR imaging. FPCT, MDCT, and MR Arthrography examinations were blinded and randomly evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists in consensus. In each ankle, eight articular cartilage areas were assessed separately: medial talar surface, medial talar trochlea, lateral talar trochlea, lateral talar surface, tibial malleolus, medial tibial plafond, lateral tibial plafond, and fibular malleolus. Findings at FPCT and MR were compared with MDCT assessments in 216 cartilage areas. Results For the detection of cartilage defects, FPCT demonstrated a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 95%, and accuracy of 96%; and MR Arthrography showed a sensitivity of 69%, specificity of 94%, and accuracy of 87%. FPCT and MR Arthrography presented almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.87) and moderate agreement (κ = 0.60), respectively, with MDCT Arthrography. Mean diagnostic confidence was higher for FPCT (2.9/3) than for MR (2.3/3) and MDCT (2.7/3) Arthrography. Conclusions FPCT demonstrated better accuracy than did 1.5  T MR Arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint. Therefore, FPCT should be considered in patients scheduled for dedicated imaging of ankle articular cartilage.

    Free Register to Access Article

  • Diagnostic Performance of Flat-Panel CT Arthrography for Cartilage Defect Detection in the Ankle Joint: Comparison With MDCT Arthrography With Gross Anatomy as the Reference Standard
    American Journal of Roentgenology, 2014
    Co-Authors: David Chemouni, Vanessa Pauly, Daphné Guenoun, Pierre Champsaur, Julie Desrousseaux, Thomas Le Corroller

    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance and radiation exposure of flat-panel CT Arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint to standard MDCT Arthrography, using gross anatomy and thermoluminescent dosimetry as reference standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ten cadaveric ankle specimens were obtained from individuals who had willed their bodies to science. Five milliliters of a mixture of diluted ioxaglate and saline were injected. Specimens were examined consecutively with the use of flat-panel CT and MDCT. Radiation doses of flat-panel CT and MDCT were recorded using thermoluminescent dosimeters. Flat-panel CT and MDCT Arthrography examinations were blinded and randomly evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists in consensus. In each ankle specimen, eight cartilage areas were assessed separately: medial talar surface, medial talar trochlea, lateral talar trochlea, lateral talar surface, tibial malleolus, medial tibial plafond, lateral tibial plafond, and fibular malleolus. Findings at flat-panel CT and MDCT Arthrography were compared with macroscopic assessments in 80 cartilage areas. RESULTS. For the detection of cartilage lesions, flat-panel CT showed a sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 98%, and accuracy of 94%, and MDCT Arthrography showed a sensitivity of 55%, specificity of 98%, and accuracy of 88%. Flat-panel CT and MDCT Arthrography showed almost perfect (kappa = 0.83) and substantial (kappa = 0.65) agreement, respectively, with anatomic examination. Radiation dose was significantly lower for flat-panel CT (mean, 2.1 mGy; range, 1.1-3.0 mGy) than for MDCT (mean, 47.2 mGy; range, 39.3-53.8 mGy) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION. Flat-panel CT Arthrography is accurate for detecting cartilage defects in the ankle joint and is an alternative to MDCT Arthrography that may have better diagnostic performance and may permit the use of a lower radiation dose.

    Free Register to Access Article

  • Preoperative Imaging of Anterior Shoulder Instability: Diagnostic Effectiveness of MDCT Arthrography and Comparison With MR Arthrography and Arthroscopy
    American Journal of Roentgenology, 2012
    Co-Authors: Souad Acid, Thomas Le Corroller, Vanessa Pauly, Richard Aswad, Pierre Champsaur

    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess the diagnostic effectiveness of MDCT Arthrography in the preoperative planning of anterior shoulder instability compared with MR Arthrography and arthroscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Shoulder MDCT Arthrography and MR Arthrography examinations prospectively performed in 40 consecutive patients (30 male and 10 female patients; mean age, 26 years) were independently evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists who were blinded to the arthroscopic findings, which represented the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and agreement with arthroscopy were determined for osseous, cartilage, and labroligamentous injuries. RESULTS. In detecting glenoid rim fractures, MDCT Arthrography had a sensitivity of 100% (12/12), a specificity of 96% (27/28), and better agreement with surgery (kappa = 0.94) than did MR Arthrography (kappa = 0.74). For the depiction of glenoid cartilage lesions, MDCT Arthrography had a sensitivity of 82% (18/22), a specificity of 89% (16/18), and slightly better agreement with surgery (kappa = 0.70) than did MR Arthrography (kappa = 0.66). In identifying anterior labral periosteal sleeve avulsion lesions, MDCT Arthrography had a sensitivity of 93% (26/28), a specificity of 100% (12/12), and better agreement with surgery (kappa = 0.89) than did MR Arthrography (kappa = 0.74). For the diagnosis of humeral avulsion of the inferior glenohumeral ligament lesions, MDCT Arthrography had a sensitivity and a specificity of 100% (2/2) and better agreement with surgery (kappa = 1) than did MR Arthrography (kappa = 0.79). CONCLUSION. MDCT Arthrography showed better accuracy than did MR Arthrography in the detection of osseous, cartilage, and labroligamentous injuries related to anterior shoulder instability. Because MDCT Arthrography was particularly reliable for the detection of glenoid rim fractures and humeral avulsion of the inferior glenohumeral ligament lesions, which represent crucial findings in the preoperative planning, this technique may beneficially affect treatment by means of selecting the proper surgical treatment.

    Free Register to Access Article

Bruno Vande Berg – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • diagnostic performance of ct Arthrography and 1 5t mr Arthrography for the assessment of glenohumeral joint cartilage a comparative study with arthroscopic correlation
    European Radiology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Patrick Omoumi, Bruno Vande Berg, Jean-emile Dubuc, Alexandra Rubini, Frédéric Lecouvet

    Abstract:

    Purpose
    To compare the diagnostic performance of multi-detector CT Arthrography (CTA) and 1.5-T MR Arthrography (MRA) in detecting hyaline cartilage lesions of the shoulder, with arthroscopic correlation.

    Free Register to Access Article

  • Evaluation of rotator cuff tendon tears: comparison of multidetector CT Arthrography and 1.5-T MR Arthrography.
    Radiology, 2012
    Co-Authors: Patrick Omoumi, Bruno Vande Berg, Anne-catherine Bafort, Jean-emile Dubuc, Jacques Malghem, Frédéric Lecouvet

    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomographic (CT) Arthrography and 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) Arthrography in the evaluation of rotator cuff lesions, with arthroscopic correlation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional ethical committee, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. CT and MR arthrographic images prospectively obtained in 56 consecutive patients, following the same arthrographic procedure, were independently evaluated by two radiologists. Arthroscopy, performed within 1 month of the imaging, was used as the reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity of CT and MR Arthrography were compared by using the McNemar test. Interobserver and intertechnique agreement for detecting rotator cuff lesions were measured and compared with κ and Z statistics. The Bland-Altman method was used to determine interobserver and intertechnique agreement for measuring tendon tears. For grading fatty infiltration of rotator cuff muscles, κ and Z statistics were used. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity and specificity between CT Arthrography and MR Arthrography in depiction of rotator cuff lesions. The respective sensitivity and specificity of CT Arthrography were 92% and 93%-97% for the supraspinatus, 100% and 77%-79% for the infraspinatus, 75%-88% and 85%-90% for the subscapularis, and 55%-65% and 100% for the biceps tendon. The respective sensitivity and specificity of MR Arthrography were 96% and 83%-93% for the supraspinatus, 88%-100% and 81%-83% for the infraspinatus, 75%-88% and 90%-100% for the subscapularis, and 65%-85% and 100% for the biceps tendon. Interobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect (κ = 0.744-0.964 for CT Arthrography; κ = 0.641-0.893 for MR Arthrography), and intertechnique agreement was almost perfect (κ > 0.819). CT and MR Arthrography both yielded moderate interobserver and intertechnique agreement for measuring rotator cuff tears and grading muscle fatty infiltration. CONCLUSION: Data suggest that CT and MR Arthrography have similar diagnostic performance for the evaluation of rotator cuff tendon tears

    Free Register to Access Article

  • Value of CT Arthrography in the Assessment of Cartilage Pathology
    Cartilage Imaging, 2011
    Co-Authors: Patrick Omoumi, Bruno Vande Berg, Frédéric Lecouvet

    Abstract:

    Intraarticular contrast material has long been used to delineate cartilage lesions with X-rays. The first reports of Arthrography date back to 1905 [1]. Attempts were made to overcome the inherent limitations of Arthrography (due to the projection of three-dimensional structures on a plane), using tomographic techniques [2] and various projections [3]. The advent of computed tomography (CT) enabled Arthrography to develop further. First reported in 1979 for the study of cruciate ligaments [4], computed tomographic Arthrography (CT Arthrography) was very early proved to be useful for the study of cartilage [5–7]. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now considered to be the technique of choice for the assessment of the structure of cartilage (including biochemical analysis) and intrachondral lesions [8, 9], CT Arthrography gained new interest with the advent of multidetector computer tomography (MDCT). This technique provides true isotropic imaging, with the possibility of high-resolution multiplanar reformatting [10]. It thus allows the evaluation of the entire joint cartilage and not only of cartilage areas perpendicular to the acquisition plane as with conventional CT Arthrography [11]. In comparison to magnetic resonance imaging Arthrography (MR Arthrography), studies have shown that CT Arthrography is at least as accurate, sensitive, and specific for the evaluation of cartilage thickness [12, 13], surface cartilage lesions, and cartilage loss [14, 15]. CT Arthrography is indicated for the study of joint surfaces whenever MR Arthrography cannot be ­performed, either because it is less available as in some countries, or contraindicated, or technically impossible (e.g., with obese or claustrophobic patients; presence of metallic hardware) [16]. Its main drawbacks remain, however, the exposition to ionizing radiation and the need for a joint puncture.

    Free Register to Access Article