Zusammenfassung
Der anhaltenden Diskussion über die CT-Arthrografie und MR-Arthrografie liegt nicht zuletzt der Umstand zugrunde, dass bisher klare Leit- oder Richtlinien zur Indikationsstellung fehlen. Das Bestreben der AG Muskuloskelettale Radiologie der DRG war die Erstellung von Empfehlungen, die als Orientierungshilfe dienen sollen. Nach Durchsicht der aktuellen Literatur erfolgte zu diesem Zweck ein Konsensustreffen, bei dem die Indikationsfragen diskutiert wurden. Da der qualitativ oft unzureichenden und widersprüchlichen Literatur keine klaren Aussagen zu entnehmen sind, basieren die formulierten Empfehlungen vorrangig auf Expertenmeinungen. In dieser Übersicht werden die wichtigsten Aussagen der Literaturdurchsicht zusammengefasst und die Empfehlungen der AG Muskuloskelettale Radiologie vorgestellt.
Abstract
The ongoing discussion about CT and MR arthrography is at least in part due to the lack of definite guidelines. The intention of the musculoskeletal workgroup of the DRG (Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft) was the establishment of recommendations for general guidance. After review of the recent literature, the indications for arthrographic examinations were discussed during a consensus meeting. Since the published data are insufficient and partially contradictory, no precise statements could be extracted from the literature. Therefore, the proposed recommendations are mainly based on expert opinions. In this review the main statements of the published literature are summarized and the recommendations of the musculoskeletal workgroup of the DRG are presented.
Key words
CT arthrography - MR arthrography - musculoskeletal imaging - indication - guideline
Literatur
1
Arrivé L, Renard R, Carrat F. et al .
A scale of methodological quality for clinical studies of radiologic examinations.
Radiology.
2000;
217
69-74
2
Waldt S, Metz S, Burkart A. et al .
Variants of the superior labrum and labro-bicipital complex: a comparative study of shoulder specimens using MR arthrography, multi-slice CT arthrography and anatomical dissection.
Eur Radiol.
2006;
16
451-458
3
Waldt S, Bruegel M, Ganter K. et al .
Comparison of multislice CT arthrography and MR arthrography for the detection of articular cartilage lesions of the elbow.
Eur Radiol.
2005;
15
784-791
4
Moser T, Dosch J, Moussaoui A. et al .
Wrist ligament tears: evaluation of MRI and combined MDCT and MR arthrography.
AJR.
2007;
188
1278-1286
5
Schmid M R, Pfirrmann C WA, Hodler J. et al .
Cartilage lesions in the ankle joint: comparison of MR arthrography and CT arthrography.
Skeletal Radiol.
2003;
32
259-265
6
Parmar H, Jhankaria B, Maheshwari M. et al .
Magnetic resonance arthrography in recurrent anterior shoulder instability as compared to arthroscopy: a prospective comparative study.
J Postgrad Med.
2002;
48
270-274
7
Applegate G R, Hewitt M, Snyder S J. et al .
Chronic labral tears: value of magnetic resonance arthrography in evaluating the glenoid labrum and labral-bicipital complex.
Arthroscopy.
2004;
20
959-963
8
Waldt S, Burkart A, Lange P. et al .
Diagnostic performance of MR arthrography in the assessment of superior labral anteroposterior lesions of the shoulder.
AJR.
2004;
182
1271-1278
9
Waldt S, Burkart A, Imhoff A B. et al .
Anterior shoulder instability: accuracy of MR arthrography in the classification of anteroinferior labroligamentous injuries.
Radiology.
2005;
237
578-583
10
Reuss B L, Schwartzberg R, Zlatkon M B. et al .
Magnetic resonance imaging accuracy for the diagnosis of superior labrum anterior-posterior lesions in the community setting: eighty-three arthroscopically confirmed cases.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg.
2006;
15
580-585
11
Probyn L J, White L M, Salonen D C. et al .
Recurrent symptoms after shoulder instability repair: direct MR arthrographic assessment – correlation with second-look surgical evaluation.
Radiology.
2007;
245
814-823
12
Guntern D V, Pfirrmann C WA, Schmid M R. et al .
Articular cartilage lesions of the glenohumeral joint: diagnostic effectiveness of MR arthrography and prevalence in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome.
Radiology.
2003;
226
165-170
13
Waldt S, Bruegel K, Mueller D. et al .
Rotator cuff tears: assessment with MR arthrography in 275 patients with arthroscopic correlation.
Eur Radiol.
2007;
17
491-498
14
Lecouvet F E, Dorzee B, Dubuc J E. et al .
Cartilage lesions of the glenohumeral joint: diagnostic effectiveness of multidetector spiral CT arthrography and comparison with arthroscopy.
Eur Radiol.
2007;
17
1763-1771
15
Dubberley J H, Faber K J, Patterson S D. et al .
The detection of loose bodies in the elbow. The value of MRI and CT arthrography.
J Bone Joint Surg.
2005;
87-B
684-686
16
Schmitt R, Christopoulos G, Meier R. et al .
Direkte MR-Arthrographie des Handgelenks im Vergleich zur Arthroskopie: Eine prospektive Studie an 125 Patienten.
Fortschr Röntgenstr.
2003;
175
911-919
17
Joshy S, Lee K, Deshmukh S C.
Accuracy of direct magnetic resonance arthrography in the diagnosis of triangular fibrocartilage complex tears of the wrist.
Int Orthop.
2008;
32
251-253
18
Berná-Serna J D, Martinez F, Reus M. et al .
Evaluation of the triangular fibrocartilage in cadaveric wrists by means of arthrography, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and MR arthrography.
Acta Radiol.
2007;
48
96-103
19
Rüegger C, Schmid M R, Pfirrmann C W. et al .
Peripheral tear of the triangular fibrocartilage: depiction with MR arthrography of the distal radioulnar joint.
Am J Radiol.
2007;
188
187-192
20
Bille B, Harley B, Cohen H.
A comparison of CT arthrography of the wrist to findings during wrist arthroscopy.
J Hand Surg.
2007;
32A
834-841
21
Haims A H, Schweitzer M E, Morrison W B. et al .
Internal derangement of the wrist: indirect MR arthrography versus unenhanced MR imaging.
Radiology.
2003;
227
701-707
22
Schmid M R, Schertler T, Pfirrmann C W. et al .
Interosseous ligament tears of the wrist: comparison of multi-detector row CT arthrography and MR imaging.
Radiology.
2005;
237
1008-1013
23
Schmid M R, Nötzli H P, Zanetti M. et al .
Cartilage lesions in the hip: Diagnostic effectiveness of MR arthrography.
Radiology.
2003;
226
382-386
24
Byrd J WT, Jones K S.
Diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography, and intra-articular injection in hip arthroscopy patients.
Am J Sports Med.
2004;
32
1668-1674
25
Mintz M DN, Hooper T, Connell D. et al .
Magnetic resonance imaging of the hip: detection of labral and chondral abnormalities using noncontrast imaging.
Arthroscopy.
2005;
21
385-393
26
James S LJ, Ali K, Malara F. et al .
MRI findings of femoroacetabular impingement.
AJR.
2006;
187
1412-1419
27
Toomayan G A, Holman W R, Major N M. et al .
Sensitivity of MR arthrography in the evaluation of acetabular labral tears.
AJR.
2006;
186
449-453
28
Freedman B A, Potter B K, Dinauer P A. et al .
Prognostic value of magnetic resonance arthrography for Czerny stages II and III acetabular labral tears.
Arthroscopy.
2006;
22
742-747
29
Magee T, Shapiro M, Rodriguez J. et al .
MR arthrography of postoperative knee: for which patients is it useful?.
Radiology.
2003;
229
159-163
30
Vives M J, Homesley D, Ciccotti M G. et al .
Evaluation of recurring meniscal tears with Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.
Am J Sports Med.
2003;
31
868-873
31
Vande Berg B C, Lecouvet F E, Poilvache P.
Assessment of knee cartilage in cadavers with dual-detector spiral CT arthrography and MR imaging.
Radiology.
2002;
222
430-436
32
Muratli H H, Bicimoglu A, Celebi L. et al .
Magnetic resonance arthrographic evaluation of syndesmotic diastasis in ankle fractures.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.
2005;
125
222-227
33
Chou M, Yeh L, Chen C K. et al .
Comparison of plain MRI and MR arthrography in the evaluation of lateral ligamentous injury of the ankle joint.
J Chin Med Assoc.
2006;
69
26-31
34
De Filippo M, Bertellini A, Sverzellati N. et al .
Multidetector computed tomography arthrography of the shoulder: diagnostic accuracy and indications.
Acta Radiol.
2008;
49
540-549
35
Joshy S, Lee K, Deshmukh S C.
Accuracy of direct magnetic resonance arthrography in the diagnosis of triangular fibrocartilage complex tears of the wrist.
Int Orthop.
2008;
32
251-253
36
Wyler A, Bousson V, Bergot C. et al .
Comparison of MR-arthrography and CT-arthrography in hyaline cartilage-thickness measurement in radiographically normal cadaver hips with anatomy as gold standard.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage.
2009;
17
19-25
37
Ciliz D, Ciliz A, Elverici E.
Evaluation of postoperative menisci with MR arthrography and routine conventional MRI.
Clin Imaging.
2008;
32
212-219
38
De Filippo M, Bertellini A, Pogliacomi F. et al .
Multidetector computed tomography arthrography of the knee: diagnostic accuracy and indications.
Eur J Radiol.
2008;
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.01.034
39
Sasyniuk T M, Mohtadi N GH, Hollinshead R M. et al .
The inter-rater reliability of shoulder arthroscopy.
Arthroscopy.
2007;
23
971-977
40
Schulte-Altedorneburg G, Gebhard M, Wohlgemuth W A. et al .
MR arthrography: pharmacology, efficacy and safety in clinical trials.
Skeletal Radiol.
2003;
32
1-12
Dr. Wolfgang Fischer
Radiologengemeinschaft Augsburg, Hessingpark-Clinic
Hessingstr. 17
86199 Augsburg
Phone: + + 49/8 21/9 09 90 18
Fax: + + 49/8 21/9 09 90 24
Email: wolfgang.fischer@hessingpark-clinic.de