Comparison between conventional MRI and weight-bearing positional MRI reveals important differences in radiological measurements of the patellofemoral joint

被引:2
|
作者
Hansen, Philip [1 ]
Harving, Mette [2 ]
ohlenschlaeger, Tommy [3 ]
Brinch, Signe [4 ]
Lavard, Peter [5 ]
Krogsgaard, Michael [5 ]
Boesen, Mikael [4 ]
机构
[1] Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hosp, Musculoskeletal Imaging Res Unit, Dept Radiol, Nielsine Nielsens vej 41A, DK-2400 NV Copenhagen, Denmark
[2] Rigshospitalet, Dept Radiol, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 NV Copenhagen, Denmark
[3] Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hosp, Inst Sports Med Copenhagen, IOC Res Ctr Copenhagen, Nielsine Nielsens vej 11, DK-2400 NV Copenhagen, Denmark
[4] Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hosp, Dept Radiol, Musculoskeletal Imaging Res Unit Copenhagen, Nielsine Nielsens vej 41A, DK-2400 NV Copenhagen, Denmark
[5] Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hosp, IOC Res Ctr Copenhagen, Sect Sports Traumatol M51, Nielsine Nielsens vej 3, DK-2400 NV Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
Positional MRI; Weight bearing MRI; Patellofemoral joint; Reproducibility; TT-TG distance; TROCHLEAR GROOVE DISTANCE; PATELLAR HEIGHT; RELIABILITY; ALTA; INSTABILITY; MALTRACKING; CARTILAGE; ALIGNMENT; CT;
D O I
10.1007/s00256-023-04304-9
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective To compare radiological measurements of the patellofemoral joint (PFJ) morphology and measurement reproducibility across the following scanning modalities: (a) 3 T supine MRI, (b) 0.25 T supine MRI and (c) standing 0.25 T MRI. Methods Forty patients referred to MRI of the knee were scanned by high field 3 T MRI in supine position and low field 0.25 T positional (pMRI) in supine and standing positions. Radiological measurements for assessment of femoral trochlear morphology, patellar tracking, patellar height and knee flexion angle were compared across scanning situations by one-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Measurement reliability and agreement were assessed by calculation of ICC, SEM and MDC. Results Patellar tracking differed across scanning situations, particularly between 3.0 T supine and 0.25 T standing position. Mean differences are the following: patella bisect offset (PBO): 9.6%, p <= 0.001; patellar tilt angle (PTA): 3.1 degrees, p <= 0.001; tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distance (TT-TG): 2.7 mm, p <= 0.001). Measurements revealed slight knee joint flexion in supine and slight hyperextension in the standing position (MD: 9.3 degrees, P <= 0.001), likely related to the observed differences in patellar tracking. Reproducibility was comparable across MRI field strengths. In general, PBO, PTA and TT-TG were the most robust measurements in terms of reproducibility and agreement across scanning situations (ICC range: 0.85-0.94). Conclusion Significant differences in important patellofemoral morphology measurements were observed between supine and standing MRI scanning positions. These were unlikely due to physiological factors such as changes in joint loading but rather induced by slight differences in knee flexion angle. This emphasises the need to standardise knee positioning during scanning, particularly for weight-bearing positional MRI before clinical use.
引用
收藏
页码:1525 / 1534
页数:10
相关论文
共 26 条
  • [1] Comparison between conventional MRI and weight-bearing positional MRI reveals important differences in radiological measurements of the patellofemoral joint
    Philip Hansen
    Mette Harving
    Tommy Øhlenschlæger
    Signe Brinch
    Peter Lavard
    Michael Krogsgaard
    Mikael Boesen
    Skeletal Radiology, 2023, 52 : 1525 - 1534
  • [2] Weight-bearing MRI of patellofemoral joint cartilage contact area
    Gold, GE
    Besier, TF
    Draper, CE
    Asakawa, DS
    Delp, SL
    Beaupre, GS
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2004, 20 (03) : 526 - 530
  • [3] Differences in Patellofemoral Kinematics between Weight-Bearing and Non-Weight-Bearing Conditions in Patients with Patellofemoral Pain
    Draper, Christine E.
    Besier, Thor F.
    Fredericson, Michael
    Santos, Juan M.
    Beaupre, Gary S.
    Delp, Scott L.
    Gold, Garry E.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, 2011, 29 (03) : 312 - 317
  • [4] Knee instability signs: preliminary comparison between conventional and weight-bearing MRI in patients with complete anterior cruciate ligament tear
    Villosio, N.
    Piccazzo, R.
    Paparo, F.
    Muda, A.
    Garlaschi, G.
    MEDICINA DELLO SPORT, 2013, 66 (02) : 253 - 264
  • [5] RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WEIGHT-BEARING PATTERN AND CONTACT FORCE ON THE PATELLOFEMORAL JOINT DURING WALKING
    Uritani, Daisuke
    Ogaya, Shinya
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2024, 32 : S141 - S141
  • [6] Impact of joint hypermobility on lumbar positional changes in back pain patients: a cross-sectional weight-bearing MRI study
    Thorseth, Ingrid
    Nordberg, Cecilie Lerche
    Boesen, Mikael
    Bliddal, Henning
    Fournier, Gilles Ludger
    Hansen, Philip
    Nielsen, Sabrina Mai
    Hansen, Bjarke Brandt
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2025, 34 (03) : 1071 - 1078
  • [7] Clinical value of weight-bearing CT and radiographs for detecting patellofemoral cartilage visualized by MRI in the MOST study
    Segal, N. A.
    Murphy, M. T.
    Everist, B. M.
    Brown, K. D.
    He, J.
    Lynch, J. A.
    Nevitt, M. C.
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2021, 29 (11) : 1540 - 1548
  • [8] Differences between X-ray and MRI-determined knee cartilage thickness in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing conditions
    Marsh, M.
    Souza, R. B.
    Wyman, B. T.
    Le Graverand, M. -P. Hellio
    Subburaj, K.
    Link, T. M.
    Majumdar, S.
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2013, 21 (12) : 1876 - 1885
  • [9] Weight-bearing MRI with a knee flexion angle of 20°: a study on additional MRI investigation modalities to support a more accurate understanding of patellofemoral instability
    J. Leiprecht
    F. Mauch
    J. Huth
    L. P. Ambros
    R. Best
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 22
  • [10] Weight-bearing MRI with a knee flexion angle of 20°: a study on additional MRI investigation modalities to support a more accurate understanding of patellofemoral instability
    Leiprecht, J.
    Mauch, F.
    Huth, J.
    Ambros, L. P.
    Best, R.
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2021, 22 (01)