Šimeček K, Látal P, Duda J, Šimeček M
Ortopedicko-traumatologické oddělení Nemocnice Písek, a. s.
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2017;84(4):285-291.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Our retrospective study presents the comparison of the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging of the knee joint - MRI - and the arthroscopic finding - ASC. Its aim is to find out how a positive or a negative finding of MRI corresponds with the operative finding and how much the experience of radiologist contributes to the conformity. MATERIAL AND METHODS The MRI findings of knee joints treated surgically at two departments in 2013 and 2014 were assessed. The MRI was performed in a total of 470 patients who subsequently underwent an arthroscopic surgery. A conformity or a non-conformity in anterior, posterior horn and complete rupture of both menisci and in partial or complete tear of anterior cruciate ligament - LCA was searched for. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI were established. The difference between experienced and less experienced radiologists was evaluated. The analysis of the radiology report, surgical protocol of ASC and medical history in the documentation was performed. The cartilage was not subject to evaluation. The finding of Grade 1 meniscus tear on MRI was evaluated as negative. Grade 2 and Grade 3 were evaluated as positive. RESULTS Comparison of the preoperative MRI and the arthroscopic finding 1. The group with MRI reported 3 % of diagnostic arthroscopies. The control group without MRI (551 ASC) reported 15 % diagnostic arthroscopies. 2. Low sensitivity of MRI (0.67) in negative findings of ASC. It concerned 7 cases in which a pathological finding was identified on a MRI scan, but not by ASC. In two cases the repeated arthroscopy confirmed that a pathology inside the knee joint was overlooked by the arthroscopist. In the remaining five cases, the clinical finding improved without a repeated surgery. 3. High sensitivity of MRI is shown in the most frequent finding - posterior horn of medial meniscus (0.94). 4. Lower sensitivity (0.76) in partial and (0.83) in complete ACL tear. It increases to 0.93 if partial and complete tear are put together. Both MRI and ASC detect the pathology of ligament, but do not agree in terms of terminology. 5. Lower sensitivity (0.78) was seen in posterior horn of lateral meniscus, most likely due to its complicated anatomy. 6. Specificity of complete tear of medial meniscus tear is 0.99. Lower specificity in the posterior horn of medial meniscus (0.81) shows a higher number of positive MRI findings in negative ASC findings. Some posterior horn tear can be overlooked by an inexperienced surgeon. The MRD findings need to be studied. 7. High specificity (0.99) was described in negative findings. In three cases only, the surgeon discovered a pathological finding, not revealed by MRI scan. It always concerned a tear within the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. 8. Specificity (0.88, 0.93 or 0.86, respectively) in partial, complete and all ACL damages in total. 9. We concluded that contributing to the degree of agreement between MRI and ASC is also the experience of a radiologist. The most experienced radiologist evaluated 190 of 470 MRI scans, the remaining twelve radiologists assessed 280 scans. The posterior horn of the medial meniscus - sensitivity or specificity evaluated by an experienced radiologist (0.98 and 0.88, respectively) and inexperienced radiologist (0.91 and 0.79). The specificity and sensitivity in complete ACL tears - by experienced radiologist (0.91 and 0.94, respectively) and inexperienced radiologist (0.81 and 0.90, respectively). The test accuracy of the experienced radiologist in evaluating the most frequent injuries of soft knee structures was by 9-10 % higher than of the inexperienced radiologist. DISCUSSION The results obtained by the other authors show that the sensitivity and specificity range from 0.6 to 0.9. They agree that the MRI is unsuitable for assessing the cartilage. We confirm that the results are worse when evaluating the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus. We have also proven that the radiologist s experience does play an important role. It can be the reason for a high degree of difference between the results of various authors. Some of them give preference to a clinical examination or a diagnostic arthroscopy instead of the MRI. At our department, MRI is indicated if we are convinced it can help with the indication or where it will suggest what to focus on during the surgery. CONCLUSIONS A preoperative MRI scan can prevent an unnecessary arthroscopy. It displays structures to the surgeon which shall be reviewed in detail during the surgery. We recommend paying attention to Grade 2 MRI findings, positive MRI findings on the posterior horn of medial meniscus and to MRI findings on partial ACL tears. Such menisci and ligaments shall be carefully reviewed. Clinical preoperative examination and cooperation between the surgeon, the "arthroscopist", and the radiologist is essential. The experience of the radiologist also plays a role when evaluating the MRI scan. We have introduced MRI ward rounds. Key words: MRI, knee joint, knee arthroscopy, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy.
研究目的 我们的回顾性研究对膝关节术前磁共振成像(MRI)与关节镜检查结果(ASC)进行了比较。其目的是找出MRI的阳性或阴性结果与手术结果的对应关系,以及放射科医生的经验对符合率的贡献程度。 材料与方法 对2013年和2014年在两个科室接受手术治疗的膝关节MRI检查结果进行评估。共有470例患者接受了MRI检查,随后进行了关节镜手术。搜索内侧半月板和外侧半月板前后角及完全撕裂,以及前交叉韧带(LCA)部分或完全撕裂的符合或不符合情况。确定了MRI的敏感性、特异性和准确性。评估了经验丰富和经验不足的放射科医生之间的差异。对放射学报告、ASC手术记录和病历进行了分析。未对软骨进行评估。MRI上1级半月板撕裂的结果评估为阴性。2级和3级评估为阳性。 结果 术前MRI与关节镜检查结果的比较 1. MRI组报告的诊断性关节镜检查率为3%。无MRI的对照组(551例ASC)报告的诊断性关节镜检查率为15%。 2. MRI在ASC阴性结果中的敏感性较低(0.67)。有7例在MRI扫描中发现了病理结果,但ASC未发现。在2例中,重复关节镜检查证实关节镜医生忽略了膝关节内的病理情况。在其余5例中,临床症状改善,无需再次手术。 3. MRI在最常见的发现——内侧半月板后角中显示出高敏感性(0.94)。 4. 部分ACL撕裂的敏感性较低(0.76),完全ACL撕裂的敏感性为(0.83)。如果将部分和完全撕裂合并计算,敏感性提高到0.93。MRI和ASC都能检测到韧带病变,但在术语方面不一致。 5. 外侧半月板后角的敏感性较低(0.78),最可能是由于其解剖结构复杂。 6. 内侧半月板完全撕裂的特异性为0.99。内侧半月板后角的特异性较低(0.81),表明在ASC阴性结果中MRI阳性结果较多。一些后角撕裂可能被经验不足的外科医生忽略。需要对MRD结果进行研究。 7. 阴性结果的特异性较高(0.99)。仅在3例中,外科医生发现了MRI扫描未显示的病理结果。这些病例均涉及内侧半月板后角的撕裂。 8. 部分、完全和所有ACL损伤的特异性分别为(0.88、0.93或0.86)。 9. 我们得出结论,放射科医生的经验也有助于提高MRI与ASC之间的一致性程度。最有经验的放射科医生评估了470例MRI扫描中的190例,其余12位放射科医生评估了280例扫描。内侧半月板后角——经验丰富的放射科医生评估的敏感性和特异性分别为(0.98和0.88),经验不足的放射科医生评估的敏感性和特异性分别为(0.91和0.79)。完全ACL撕裂的特异性和敏感性——经验丰富的放射科医生分别为(0.91和0.94),经验不足的放射科医生分别为(0.81和0.90)。经验丰富的放射科医生评估膝关节最常见软组织损伤的检查准确性比经验不足的放射科医生高9 - 10%。 讨论 其他作者获得的结果表明,敏感性和特异性范围为0.6至0.9。他们一致认为MRI不适用于评估软骨。我们证实,在评估外侧半月板后角时结果更差。我们还证明了放射科医生的经验确实起着重要作用。这可能是不同作者结果存在高度差异的原因。他们中的一些人更倾向于临床检查或诊断性关节镜检查而非MRI。在我们科室,如果我们确信MRI有助于明确诊断或提示手术重点,则会进行MRI检查。 结论 术前MRI扫描可避免不必要的关节镜检查。它向外科医生展示了手术中应详细检查的结构。我们建议关注MRI的2级结果、内侧半月板后角的阳性MRI结果以及部分ACL撕裂的MRI结果。应对此类半月板和韧带进行仔细检查。临床术前检查以及外科医生、“关节镜医生”和放射科医生之间的合作至关重要。放射科医生的经验在评估MRI扫描时也发挥着作用。我们已经引入了MRI查房。 关键词:MRI;膝关节;膝关节镜检查;敏感性;特异性;准确性