header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

MRI AND CT ARTHROGRAPHY HAVE LIMITED UTILITY FOR THE DETECTION OF LOOSE BODIES IN THE ELBOW



Abstract

The reliability and accuracy of plain radiographs, MRI and CT Arthrography to detect the presence of loose bodies was evaluated in twenty-six patients with mechanical elbow symptoms. The location of loose bodies found by the imaging studies was compared to arthroscopic findings. Overall sensitivity for the detection of loose bodies was 88 – 100% and specificity was 20 – 70%. Plain radiographs had a similar sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 71% respectively. MRI and CT Arthrography were similar to plain radiography, suggesting that routine use of these modalities is not indicated.

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical utility of MRI and CT Arthrography (CTA) to reliably and accurately predict the presence of loose bodies in the elbow.

Twenty-six patients with mechanical elbow symptoms underwent plain radiography, MRI and CTA, followed by standard elbow arthroscopy. Three musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed the ‘blinded’ plain radiographs with both the MRI and CTA at separate sittings. The location and number of loose bodies on the MRI and CTA were recorded. The preoperative plain radiographs, MRI and CTA were compared to the arthroscopic findings.

Agreement between radiologists was higher for the number of loose bodies identified in the posterior compartment (ICC=0.72 for both MRI and CTA) than in the anterior compartment (ICC=0.41 and 0.52 for MRI and CTA respectively). The correlation between the number of lose bodies observed on MRI and CTA compared to those found arthroscopically was also higher in the posterior compartment (r=0.54–0.85) than in the anterior compartment (r=0.01–0.45). Both MRI and CTA had excellent sensitivity (92–100%) but moderate to low specificity (15–77%) in identifying posteriorly located loose bodies. Neither MRI nor CTA were consistently sensitive (46–91%) or specific (13–73%) in predicting anterior loose bodies. Overall sensitivity for the detection of loose bodies in either compartment was 88–100% and specificity was 20–70%. The preoperative radiographs had a similar sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 71% respectively.

MRI and CTA were similar to plain radiography in the prediction of elbow loose bodies.

Correspondence should be addressed to Cynthia Vezina, Communications Manager, COA, 4150-360 Ste. Catherine St. West, Westmount, QC H3Z 2Y5, Canada