Using an Office-Based, Dedicated Extremity MRI Scanner for Depicting Important Structures in Common Wrist Pathologies: A Pilot Comparison with a Conventional MRI Scanner

Qi Yin; Radu A. Manoliu; Jayant R. Kichari; Marco J. P. F. Ritt

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1715799

Journal of Wrist Surgery, Inhaltsverzeichnis

J Wrist Surg 2021; 10(01): 084-092
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715799

Emerging Technologies and New Technological Concepts

Using an Office-Based, Dedicated Extremity MRI Scanner for Depicting Important Structures in Common Wrist Pathologies: A Pilot Comparison with a Conventional MRI Scanner

Qi Yin

¹Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

²Department of Radiology, St. Jansdal Hospital, Harderwijk, The Netherlands

,

Radu A. Manoliu

³MRI Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

,

Jayant R. Kichari

²Department of Radiology, St. Jansdal Hospital, Harderwijk, The Netherlands

,

Marco J. P. F. Ritt

¹Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

⁴The Hand Clinic Amsterdam, Amsterdam, TheNetherlands

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Background Compared with the conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), dedicated MRI scanners are more accessible. Images of a dedicated 1.0-T MRI specifically developed for the hand and wrist were compared with images of a conventional 1.5-T MRI.

Methods Paired images of the right wrist were randomized and separately graded by two experienced radiologists for the quality of anatomical details, including the triangular fibrocartilage complex, carpal ligaments, intercarpal cartilage, median and ulnar nerves, overall image quality, and artifacts. Interrater reliability was measured with the percentage of exact agreement and agreement within a range of ± 1 score point. Participant experience of undergoing the examination in both MRI scanners was evaluated using a questionnaire.

Results The overall image quality of all sequences was considered to be moderate to high. In 25 of 38 paired images, no statistically significant difference was found between the MRI scanners. Ten scores were found to be in favor of the dedicated extremity MRI. Within a range of ± 1 score point, the extremity MRI and the conventional MRI demonstrated an interrater agreement of 67 to 100% and 70 to 100%, respectively. Among the respondents of the questionnaire, the extremity MRI scored better for participant satisfaction when compared with the conventional MRI.

Conclusions In healthy volunteers, the dedicated extremity MRI generally is similar or superior to the conventional MRI in the depiction of anatomical structures of the wrists, image quality, and artifacts, and significantly scored better on participant satisfaction. Future clinical studies should focus on defining the diagnostic value of the extremity MRI in wrist pathologies.

Keywords

Magnetic Resonance Imaging - wrist - hand - extremity - anatomy

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C. et al. Expert Panel on MR Safety. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J MagnReson Imaging 2013; 37 (03) 501-530
2 Jung JY, Yoon YC, Jung JY, Choe BK. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of wrist MRI at 3.0T: comparison between isotropic 3D turbo spin echo and isotropic 3D fast field echo and 2D turbo spin echo. ActaRadiol 2013; 54 (03) 284-291
3 Saupe N, Prüssmann KP, Luechinger R, Bösiger P, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR imaging of the wrist: comparison between 1.5- and 3-T MR imaging--preliminary experience. Radiology 2005; 234 (01) 256-264
4 Stehling C, Langer M, Bachmann R. et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist: diagnostic performance compared to 1.5-T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009; 33 (06) 934-939
5 Yamabe E, Anavim A, Sakai T. et al. Comparison between high-resolution isotropic three-dimensional and high-resolution conventional two-dimensional FSE MR images of the wrist at 3 tesla: a pilot study. J MagnReson Imaging 2014; 40 (03) 603-608
6 Stevens KJ, Wallace CG, Chen W, Rosenberg JK, Gold GE. Imaging of the wrist at 1.5 Tesla using isotropic three-dimensional fast spin echo cube. J MagnReson Imaging 2011; 33 (04) 908-915
7 Taouli B, Zaim S, Peterfy CG. et al. Rheumatoid arthritis of the hand and wrist: comparison of three imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182 (04) 937-943
8 Lee RK, Griffith JF, Wang DF. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging of the wrist in rheumatoid arthritis: dedicated low-field (0.25-T) versus high-field (3.0-T) MRI. Skeletal Radiol 2015; 44 (08) 1095-1101
9 Yoshioka H, Ito S, Handa S. et al. Low-field compact magnetic resonance imaging system for the hand and wrist in rheumatoid arthritis. J MagnReson Imaging 2006; 23 (03) 370-376
10 Lindegaard HM, Vallø J, Hørslev-Petersen K, Junker P, Østergaard M. Low-cost, low-field dedicated extremity magnetic resonance imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65 (09) 1208-1212
11 Suzuki T, Ito S, Handa S. et al. New low-field extremity MRI, compacTscan: comparison with whole-body 1.5 T conventional MRI. Mod Rheumatol 2010; 20 (04) 331-336
12 Xie X, Webber CE, Adachi JD. et al. Quantitative, small bore, 1 Tesla, magnetic resonance imaging of the hands of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. ClinExpRheumatol 2008; 26 (05) 860-865
13 Bretlau T, Christensen OM, Edström P, Thomsen HS, Lausten GS. Diagnosis of scaphoid fracture and dedicated extremity MRI. ActaOrthopScand 1999; 70 (05) 504-508
14 Raby N. Magnetic resonance imaging of suspected scaphoid fractures using a low field dedicated extremity MR system. ClinRadiol 2001; 56 (04) 316-320
15 Nikken JJ, Oei EHG, Ginai AZ. et al. Acute wrist trauma: value of a short dedicated extremity MR imaging examination in prediction of need for treatment. Radiology 2005; 234 (01) 116-124