MRI versus Ultrasonography to Assess Meniscal Abnormalities in Acute Knees

Abstract

While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often considered the “gold standard” diagnostic imaging modality for detection of meniscal abnormalities, it is associated with misdiagnosis in as high as 47% of cases, is costly, and is not readily available to a large number of patients. Ultrasonographic examination of the knee has been reported to be an effective diagnostic tool for this purpose with the potential to overcome many of the shortcomings of MRI. The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical usefulness of ultrasonography for diagnosis of meniscal pathology in patients with acute knee pain and compare its diagnostic accuracy to MRI in a clinical setting. With Institutional Review Board approval, patients (n = 71) with acute knee pain were prospectively enrolled with informed consent. Preoperative MRI (1.5 T) was performed on each affected knee using the hospital's standard equipment and protocols and read by faculty radiologists trained in musculoskeletal MRI. Ultrasonographic assessments of each affected knee were performed by one of two faculty members trained in musculoskeletal ultrasonography using a 10 to 14 MHz linear transducer. Arthroscopic evaluation of affected knees was performed by one of three faculty orthopedic surgeons to assess and record all joint pathology, which served as the reference standard for determining presence, type, and severity of meniscal pathology. All evaluators for each diagnostic modality were blinded to all other data. Data were collected and compared by a separate investigator to determine sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), correct classification rate (CCR), likelihood ratios (LR[+] and LR[−]), and odds ratios. Preoperative ultrasonographic assessment of meniscal pathology was associated with Sn = 91.2%, Sp = 84.2%, PPV = 94.5%, NPV = 76.2%, CCR = 89.5%, LR(+) = 5.78, and LR(−) = 0.10. Preoperative MRI assessment of meniscal pathology was associated with Sn = 91.7%, Sp = 66.7%, PPV = 84.6%, NPV = 80.0%, CCR = 81.1%, LR(+) = 2.75, and LR(−) = 0.13. Ultrasonography was two times more likely than MRI to correctly determine presence or absence of meniscal pathology seen arthroscopically in this study. Ultrasonography is a useful tool for diagnosis of meniscal pathology with potential advantages over MRI. Based on these data and available portable equipment, ultrasonography could be considered for use as a point-of-injury diagnostic modality for meniscal injuries.

Keywords

ultrasonography - magnetic resonance imaging - meniscus - knee - arthroscopy

• References

• 1 Medical Data International; Newport Beach, CA; September 2003
• 2 Alizadeh A, Babaei Jandaghi A, Keshavarz Zirak A, Karimi A, Mardani-Kivi M, Rajabzadeh A. Knee sonography as a diagnostic test for medial meniscal tears in young patients. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2013; 23 (8) 927-931
• 3 Azzoni R, Cabitza P. Is there a role for sonography in the diagnosis of tears of the knee menisci?. J Clin Ultrasound 2002; 30 (8) 472-476
• 4 Casser HR, Sohn C, Kiekenbeck A. Current evaluation of sonography of the meniscus. Results of a comparative study of sonographic and arthroscopic findings. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1990; 109 (3) 150-154
• 5 Court-Payen M. Sonography of the knee: intra-articular pathology. J Clin Ultrasound 2004; 32 (9) 481-490
• 6 De Maeseneer M, Lenchik L, Starok M, Pedowitz R, Trudell D, Resnick D. Normal and abnormal medial meniscocapsular structures: MR imaging and sonography in cadavers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171 (4) 969-976
• 7 Esmaili Jah AA, Keyhani S, Zarei R, Moghaddam AK. Accuracy of MRI in comparison with clinical and arthroscopic findings in ligamentous and meniscal injuries of the knee. Acta Orthop Belg 2005; 71 (2) 189-196
• 8 Friedl W, Glaser F. Dynamic sonography in the diagnosis of ligament and meniscal injuries of the knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1991; 110 (3) 132-138
• 9 Grifka J, Richter J, Gumtau M. [Clinical and sonographic meniscus diagnosis]. Orthopade 1994; 23 (2) 102-111
• 10 Harper KW, Helms CA, Lambert III HS, Higgins LD. Radial meniscal tears: significance, incidence, and MR appearance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185 (6) 1429-1434
• 11 Karachalios T, Hantes M, Zibis AH, Zachos V, Karantanas AH, Malizos KN. Diagnostic accuracy of a new clinical test (the Thessaly test) for early detection of meniscal tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (5) 955-962
• 12 Khan Z, Faruqui Z, Ogyunbiyi O, Rosset G, Iqbal J. Ultrasound assessment of internal derangement of the knee. Acta Orthop Belg 2006; 72 (1) 72-76
• 13 Kornaat PR, Bloem JL, Ceulemans RY , et al. Osteoarthritis of the knee: association between clinical features and MR imaging findings. Radiology 2006; 239 (3) 811-817
• 14 Laoruengthana A, Jarusriwanna A. Sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging for knee injury and clinical application for the Naresuan University Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 2012; 95 (Suppl. 10) S151-S157
• 15 Lee D, Bouffard JA. Ultrasound of the knee. Eur J Ultrasound 2001; 14 (1) 57-71
• 16 Mattli J, Holzach P, Soklic P. [Meniscus ultrasound—a reliable way for diagnosis of meniscus lesions?]. Z Unfallchir Versicherungsmed 1993; 1 (Suppl. 01) 133-140
• 17 Najafi J, Bagheri S, Lahiji FA. The value of sonography with micro convex probes in diagnosing meniscal tears compared with arthroscopy. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25 (5) 593-597
• 18 Petersen LJ, Rasmussen OS. [Ultrasonography as a diagnostic method in suspected meniscal lesion of the knee. A prospective single blind study of 52 patients]. Ugeskr Laeger 1999; 161 (41) 5679-5682
• 19 Richter J, Grifka J, Fisseler-Eckhoff A, Müller KM, Krämer J. [Ultrasound morphologic criteria in evaluating meniscus changes—an experimental study]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1996; 134 (2) 137-143
• 20 Riedl S, Tauscher A, Kühner C, Göhring U, Sohn C, Meeder PJ. [3-dimensional ultrasound in clinical diagnosis of meniscus lesions]. Ultraschall Med 1998; 19 (1) 28-33
• 21 Vaz CE, Camargo OP, Santana PJ, Valezi AC. Accuracy of magnetic resonance in identifying traumatic intraarticular knee lesions. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2005; 60 (6) 445-450
• 22 Ververidis AN, Verettas DA, Kazakos KJ, Tilkeridis CE, Chatzipapas CN. Meniscal bucket handle tears: a retrospective study of arthroscopy and the relation to MRI. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (4) 343-349
• 23 Mahn MM, Cook JL, Cook CR, Balke MT. Arthroscopic verification of ultrasonographic diagnosis of meniscal pathology in dogs. Vet Surg 2005; 34 (4) 318-323
• 24 Garrick JG, Requa RK. Injuries in high school sports. Pediatrics 1978; 61 (3) 465-469
• 25 Maffulli N, Chan KM, Miao M, Fu FH, Kurosaka M. Athletic knee injuries. Similarities and differences between Asian and Western experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 323 (323) 98-105
• 26 Saal JA. Common American football injuries. Sports Med 1991; 12 (2) 132-147
• 27 DeLee JC, Farney WC. Incidence of injury in Texas high school football. Am J Sports Med 1992; 20 (5) 575-580
• 28 Brophy RH, Barnes R, Rodeo SA, Warren RF. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders at the NFL Combine—trends from 1987 to 2000. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007; 39 (1) 22-27