Comparison of 3.0-T MR vs 3.0-T MR arthrography of the hip for detection of acetabular labral tears and chondral defects in the same patient population

Objective:

We report our experience in diagnostic sensitivity of 3.0-T conventional MR vs 3.0-T MR arthrography of the hip for detection of acetabular labral tears and chondral defects in the same patient population.

Methods:

43 consecutive patients had both conventional hip MR and MR arthrography examinations performed. These examinations were reviewed retrospectively by independent reading of two musculoskeletal radiologists who read the MR and MR arthrogram examinations in a randomized fashion (i.e. MR and MR arthrogram examinations were read at separate sittings and in a randomized fashion so as not to bias reviewers). Scans were assessed for acetabular labral tears and chondral defects. All patients went on to arthroscopy.

Results:

Of these 43 patients, 40 had acetabular labral tears read by Reader 1 and 39 had acetabular labral tears read by Reader 2 on MR arthrogram, 39 had acetabular labral tears read by Reader 1 and 38 had acetabular labral tears read by Reader 2 on conventional MR examination. There were 42 labral tears in 43 patients at arthroscopy. There were four false-negative labral tears compared with arthroscopy on MR and three false negatives on MR arthrography for Reader 1 and five false negatives on MR and four false negatives on MR arthrography for Reader 2. Each reader had one false-positive labral tear compared with arthroscopy on both MR and MR arthrography. There were 32 acetabular chondral defects at arthroscopy. Reader 1 saw 21 acetabular chondral defects on conventional MR and 27 chondral defects at MR arthrography. Reader 2 saw 19 acetabular chondral defects at conventional MR and 25 acetabular chondral defects on MR arthrography. There were no false-positive readings of chondral defects compared with arthroscopy on MR and one false positive for Reader 1 and two false positives for Reader 2 on MR arthrography as compared with arthroscopy. On conventional MR examination, sensitivities and specificities as compared with arthroscopy were as follows: Reader 1 acetabular labral tear (90% sensitivity, 0% specificity) and Reader 2 acetabular labral tear (88% sensitivity, 0% sensitivity). On MR arthrogram, sensitivities and specificities as compared with arthroscopy for Reader 1 were 93%, 0% and for Reader 2 were 90%, 0%, respectively. Sensitivities and specificities for detection of acetabular chondral defects as compared with arthroscopy were Reader 1 conventional MR (65% sensitivity, 100% specificity), Reader 1 MR arthrography (81% sensitivity, 91% specificity), Reader 2 conventional MR (59% sensitivity, 100% specificity) and Reader 2 MR arthrography (71% sensitivity, 82% specificity).

Conclusion:

In this series, 3.0-T MR demonstrated sensitivity for detection of acetabular labral tears that rivals the sensitivity of 3.0-T MR arthrography of the hip. In this series, 3.0-T MR arthrography was more sensitive than conventional 3.0-T MR for detection of acetabular chondral defects.

Advances in knowledge:

3.0-T MR and MR arthrography are near equivalent in the diagnosis of acetabular labral tears. This information is useful for pre-operative planning.MR arthrography has been reported to be more sensitive and specific for detection of acetabular labral tears in the hip than conventional MRI.^1–10 MR arthrography has also been reported to be superior in detection of acetabular cartilage defects as compared with conventional MRI.¹¹ To our knowledge 3.0-T MR vs 3.0-T MR arthrography sensitivity for detection of acetabular labral tears and chondral defects has not been specifically assessed.To our knowledge, Petersilge et al¹ first reported the utility of hip MR arthrography in the diagnosis of acetabular labral tears. Toomayan et al² compared MR arthrography of the hip with conventional MRI of the hip in different patient populations. He found MR arthrography with a small field of view to be substantially more sensitive for detection of acetabular labral tears than conventional MRI. Sutter et al¹¹ found 1.5 T MR arthrography to be superior to conventional MRI for detecting labral tears and acetabular cartilage defects.Patients with acetabular labral tears present with symptoms of persistent pain, clicking, locking and decreased range of motion. With the availability of hip arthroscopy, labral tears can more easily be addressed with minimally invasive surgery. Accurate pre-operative identification of labral tears is needed.² Based on previous studies demonstrating the accuracy of MR arthrography in detection of acetabular labral tears, surgeons often request MR arthrography of the hip to characterize labral tears prior to surgery.^1–10 The purpose of this study is to assess 3.0-T MR vs MR arthrography diagnostic performance in detection of acetabular labral tears and chondral defects in the same patient population using arthroscopy as a reference standard.