4.2 Article

Osteitis: a retrospective feasibility study comparing single-source dual-energy CT to MRI in selected patients with suspected acute gout

Journal

SKELETAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 185-190

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00256-016-2533-1

Keywords

Dual-energy computed tomography; Bone marrow edema; Inflammation; Postprocessing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Dual-energy computed tomography detects tophi in patients with chronic gout. However, other information that can be obtained from the same scan is not the focus of the current research, e.g., the detection of bone marrow edema (BME) using virtual bone marrow imaging (VBMI). The aim of this study was to evaluate if BME in patients with acute arthritis can be detected with VBMI using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the standard of reference. Materials and methods This retrospective study included 11 patients who underwent both MRI and dual-energy computed tomography (mean interval of 40 days). BME in MRI (standard of reference) and VBMI was judged independently by two different blinded readers. phi-correlation coefficient and Cohen's kappa were performed for statistical analysis. Approval was waived by the IRB. Results Two patients with a final diagnosis of RA and one with septic arthritis showed osteitis on MRI and VBMI. However, in each case, there were individual bones identified with osteitis on MRI but not VBMI. Three additional patients with the final diagnosis of RA were identified correctly as negative for BME. There was a good correlation between both modalities (phi = 0.8; kappa = 0.8). Inter-rater reliability was excellent for both modalities (kappa = 0.9). Conclusions We have shown that detecting osteitis using VBMI is feasible in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Further studies are needed on larger, more-targeted populations to better define the indications, accuracy, and added value of this technique.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available