4.7 Article

Improved detection of subchondral erosions in the sacroiliac joints with T1-weighted fat-suppressed MRI

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 9, Pages 6810-6815

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07785-1

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging; Spondyloarthritis; Sacroiliac joint

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The diagnostic performance of MRI in detecting erosions in the sacroiliac joints is significantly improved when using T1w images with fat suppression compared to images without fat suppression.
Objective To compare the diagnostic performance of two different sets of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of subchondral erosions in the sacroiliac joints regarding the application of fat-water separation techniques when acquiring T1-weighted (T1w) images, using multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) as the reference standard. Methods We retrospectively included 31 consecutive patients having or being suspected for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) assessed using both MRI and MDCT. Three sets of images were independently assessed for the presence of erosions by two musculoskeletal radiologists (R1, R2): (1) MRI with standard T1w without fat suppression, (2) MRI with both T1w with and without fat suppression, and (3) MDCT. The diagnostic performance of both sets of MRIs was assessed using MDCT as the referent. Results The assessment of T1w images with fat suppression substantially increased sensitivity (76% vs. 63% R1; 70% vs. 60% R2), specificity (97% vs. 84% R1; 96% vs. 81% R2), positive predictive value (85% vs. 45% R1; 81% vs. 40% R2), and overall accuracy (94% vs. 80% R1; 92% vs. 77% R2) in the detection of erosions when compared to the assessment using T1w images without fat suppression. Conclusion The assessment of T1w images with fat suppression substantially improves the diagnostic performance of MRI in the detection of erosions in the sacroiliac joints.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available