Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High-resolution flat panel CT versus 3-T MR arthrography of the wrist: initial results in vivo

  • Musculoskeletal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of direct C-arm flat panel computed tomography arthrography (FPCT-A) with direct magnetic resonance arthrography (MR-A) of the wrist in patients with clinically suspected pathologies.

Methods

Forty-nine patients underwent tri-compartmental wrist arthrography. FPCT-A was acquired using a high-resolution acquisition mode, followed by a 3-T MR exam using a dedicated wrist coil. Image quality and artifacts of FPCT-A and MR-A were evaluated with regard to the depictability of anatomical structures. The time stamps for the different image acquisitions were recorded for workflow assessment.

Results

Image quality was rated significantly superior for all structures for FPCT-A (p < 0.001) as compared to MR-A including intrinsic ligaments, TFCC, cartilage, subchondral bone, and trabeculae. The differences in image quality were highest for cartilage (2.0) and lowest for TFCC (0.9). The artifacts were rated lower in MR-A than in FPCT-A (p < 0.001). The procedure was more time-efficient in FPCT-A than in MR-A.

Conclusions

FPCT-A of the wrist provides superior image quality and optimized workflow as compared to MR-A. Therefore, FPCT-A should be considered in patients scheduled for dedicated imaging of the intrinsic structures of the wrist.

Key Points

• FPCT arthrography allows high-resolution imaging of the intrinsic wrist structures.

• The image quality is superior as compared to MR arthrography.

• The procedure is more time-efficient than MR arthrography.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DAP:

Dose-area product

DRUJ:

Distal radioulnar joint

FOV:

Field of view

FPCT:

Flat panel computed tomography

MDCT:

Multidetector computed tomography

MJ:

Midcarpal joint

MRA:

Magnetic resonance arthrography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

LTL:

Lunotriquetral ligament

PDw:

Proton density weighted

RC:

Radiocarpal joint

SLL:

Scapholunate ligament

TE:

Echo time

TFCC:

Triangular fibrocartilage complex

TR:

Repetition time

TSE:

Turbo spin echo

References

  1. Kümmel A, Ebner L, Kraus M et al (2014) Magnet resonance imaging in common injuries of the wrist. Unfallchirurg 117:221–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rohman EM, Agel J, Putnam MD, Adams JE (2014) Scapholunate interosseous ligament injuries: a retrospective review of treatment and outcomes in 82 wrists. J Hand Surg Am 39:2020–2026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Magee T (2009) Comparison of 3-T MRI and arthroscopy of intrinsic wrist ligament and TFCC tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:80–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith TO, Drew B, Toms AP, Jerosch-Herold C, Chojnowski AJ (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography for triangular fibrocartilaginous complex injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:824–832

  5. Štouračová A, Šprláková-Puková A, Čižmář I, Procházková J, Janoušová E, Vališ P (2016) High-resolution MR examination of the scapholunate ligament using a microscopic coil: comparison with direct MR arthrography and arthroscopy findings. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 83:327–331

  6. Moser T, Dosch JC, Moussaoui A, Dietemann JL (2007) Wrist ligament tears: evaluation of MRI and combined MDCT and MR arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1278–1286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schmid MR, Schertler T, Pfirrmann CW et al (2005) Interosseous ligament tears of the wrist: comparison of multi-detector row CT arthrography and MR imaging. Radiology 237:1008–1013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fischer W, Bohndorf K, Kreitner KF, Schmitt R, Wörtler K, Zentner J (2009) Indications for CT and MR arthrography--recommendations of the musculoskeletal workgroup of the DRG. Rofo 181:441–446

  9. Guggenberger R, Fischer MA, Hodler J, Pfammatter T, Andreisek G (2012) Flat-panel CT arthrography: feasibility study and comparison to multidetector CT arthrography. Invest Radiol 47:312–318

  10. Kyriakou Y, Struffert T, Dörfler A, Kalender WA (2009) Basic principles of flat detector computed tomography (FD-CT). Radiologe 49:811–819

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guggenberger R, Morsbach F, Alkadhi H et al (2013) C-arm flat-panel CT arthrography of the wrist and elbow: first experiences in human cadavers. Skeletal Radiol 42:419–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement version 0.84 from CRAN. https://rdrr.io/cran/irr/. Accessed 21 Oct 2018

  13. McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 22:276–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Robinson G, Chung T, Finlay K, Friedman L (2006) Axial oblique MR imaging of the intrinsic ligaments of the wrist: initial experience. Skeletal Radiol 35:765–773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee RK, Ng AW, Tong CS et al (2013) Intrinsic ligament and triangular fibrocartilage complex tears of the wrist: comparison of MDCT arthrography, conventional 3-T MRI, and MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol 42:1277–1285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Daenen BR, Ferrara MA, Marcelis S, Dondelinger RF (1998) Evaluation of patellar cartilage surface lesions: comparison of CT arthrography and fat-suppressed FLASH 3D MR imaging. Eur Radiol 8:981–985

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. El-Khoury GY, Alliman KJ, Lundberg HJ, Rudert MJ, Brown TD, Saltzman CL (2004) Cartilage thickness in cadaveric ankles: measurement with double-contrast multi-detector row CT arthrography versus MR imaging. Radiology 233:768–773

  18. Sahin M, Calisir C, Omeroglu H, Inan U, Mutlu F, Kaya T (2014) Evaluation of labral pathology and hip articular cartilage in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): comparison of multidetector CT arthrography and MR arthrography. Pol J Radiol 79:374–380

  19. Acid S, Le Corroller T, Aswad R, Pauly V, Champsaur P (2012) Preoperative imaging of anterior shoulder instability: diagnostic effectiveness of MDCT arthrography and comparison with MR arthrography and arthroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:661–667

  20. Sutherland JK, Nozaki T, Kaneko Y et al (2016) Initial experience with 3D isotropic high-resolution 3 T MR arthrography of the wrist. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0890-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Spiczak JV, Andreisek G, Alkadhi H (2013) In vitro high-resolution flat-panel computed tomographic arthrography for artificial cartilage defect detection: comparison with multidetector computed tomography. Invest Radiol 48:614–621

  22. Werncke T, Sonnow L, Meyer BC et al (2017) Ultra-high resolution C-arm CT arthrography of the wrist: radiation dose and image quality compared to conventional multidetector computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 89:191–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chemouni D, Champsaur P, Guenoun D, Desrousseaux J, Pauly V, Le Corroller T (2014) 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1069–1074

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical School Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    L. Sonnow, T. Werncke, J. B. Hinrichs, B. C. Meyer, F. K. Wacker & C. von Falck

  2. Department of Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Medical School Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    S. Koennecker & R. Luketina

Authors
  1. L. Sonnow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Koennecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Luketina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Werncke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. B. Hinrichs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. C. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. F. K. Wacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. C. von Falck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Sonnow.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is PD Dr. von Falck.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sonnow, L., Koennecker, S., Luketina, R. et al. High-resolution flat panel CT versus 3-T MR arthrography of the wrist: initial results in vivo. Eur Radiol 29, 3233–3240 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5901-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5901-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation