4.4 Article

The role of MRI in the evaluation of hip joint disease in clinical subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 75, 期 891, 页码 229-233

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.75.891.750229

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of MRI in the assessment of hip joint involvement in clinical subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). 28 patients (mean age 12.5 years) with JIA (oligoarthritis 8, polyarthritis 13, systemic arthritis 7) were examined with 7, weighted turbo spin echo and T, weighted spin echo (plain and contrast enhanced) sequences. The severity of joint involvement was evaluated using an MR grading score: grade 1=no contrast enhancement; grade 2=focal synovial contrast enhancement; grade 3=diffuse synovial contrast enhancement; grade 4=grade 3+diffuse synovial thickening; grade 5=grade 4+villonodular synovial thickening; and grade 6=grade 5+cartilage and subchondral bone erosions. MRI was abnormal in 57.1% of cases (25% of oligoarthritis, 53.8% of polyarthritis and 100% of systemic arthritis). Clinical examination was positive in 32.1% of cases and was associated with higher MR grades (mean 4.6, SD 1.34) compared with a negative clinical examination, which was associated with lower MR grades (mean 1.78, SD 1.13) (p<0.001). Patients with active disease (mean grade 3.9, SD 2) had higher MR grades than those with inactive disease (mean grade 2.1, SD 1.4) (p<0.01). The MR grades were different in the three clinical subtypes: oligoarticular (mean 1.5, SD 1.06); polyarticular (mean 2.38, SD 1.55); and systemic (mean 4.85, SID 1.21) (F:12.3, p<0.001), with a significant difference between systemic arthritis and oligoarthritis, and between systemic arthritis and polyarthritis (p<0.001). MRI of the hip might be considered for inclusion in the study protocol of patients with JIA since it reveals joint involvement at early stages and provides a detailed evaluation of the extent of joint disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据