The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:497-502.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.01630
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Knee in Children and Adolescents
Its Role in Clinical Decision-Making
Scott J. Luhmann, MD1,
Mario Schootman, PhD1,
J. Eric Gordon, MD1 and
Rick W. Wright, MD1
1 St. Louis Children's Hospital, One Children's Place, Suite 4S20, St. Louis, MO
63110. E-mail address for S.J. Luhmann:
luhmanns{at}msnotes.wustl.edu
Investigation performed at St. Louis Children's Hospital and Shriners
Hospital for Children, St. Louis, Missouri
A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article,
on our web site
(www.jbjs.org)
and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at
781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their
research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or
other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a
commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or
direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational
institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the
authors are affiliated or associated.
Background: Recent studies have questioned the utility of magnetic
resonance imaging in the diagnosis of pediatric knee disorders because of the
morphologic changes during growth and the low accuracy of the formal
interpretation of the magnetic resonance imaging scan by a radiologist. The
purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to report the accuracy of formal
interpretations of magnetic resonance imaging scans of the knee in children
and adolescent patients by a radiologist, and (2) to determine the benefit, if
any, of a personal review of the magnetic resonance imaging scan of the knee
by the orthopaedic surgeon, as a routine part of the diagnostic
evaluation.
Methods: A three-year prospective study of all patients who
underwent knee arthroscopy performed by a single surgeon, at two children's
hospitals, was completed. The analysis focused on the six most common
diagnoses: anterior cruciate ligament tear, lateral meniscal tear, medial
meniscal tear, osteochondritis dissecans, discoid lateral meniscus, and
osteochondral fracture. The preoperative diagnosis of the surgeon was
determined by integrating the history and the findings on the clinical
examination, plain radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging scans
(including the radiologist's interpretation).
Results: Ninety-six patients with ninety-six abnormal knees were
included. The mean age was 14.6 years at the time of surgery. Relative to
operative findings, kappa values for the formal interpretations of the
magnetic resonance imaging scans by a radiologist were 0.78 for an anterior
cruciate ligament tear, 0.76 for a medial meniscal tear, 0.71 for a lateral
meniscal tear, 0.70 for osteochondritis dissecans, 0.46 for discoid lateral
meniscus, and 0.65 for osteochondral fracture. Relative to operative findings,
kappa values for the preoperative diagnoses by the surgeon were 1.00 for an
anterior cruciate ligament tear, 0.90 for a medial meniscal tear, 0.92 for a
lateral meniscal tear, 0.93 for osteochondritis dissecans, 1.00 for discoid
lateral meniscus, and 0.90 for osteochondral fracture. The preoperative
diagnosis by the surgeon was better (p < 0.05) than the formal
interpretation of the magnetic resonance imaging scans by the radiologist with
respect to an anterior cruciate ligament tear, lateral meniscal tear,
osteochondritis dissecans, and discoid lateral meniscus.
Conclusions: Integration of patient information with an orthopaedic
surgeon's review of the magnetic resonance imaging scan of the knee in
children and adolescent patients improves the identification of pathological
disorders in four of the six categories evaluated. This study questions the
necessity for and appropriateness of a routine interpretation of a magnetic
resonance imaging scan of the knee in children and adolescents by a
radiologist.
Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level I. See Instructions
to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Technorati What's this?
Related articles in JBJS:
- Radiologists' Interpretations of Magnetic Resonance Images of the Knee S.J. Luhmann replies:
- Shigeru Ehara and Scott J. Luhmann
JBJS 2005 87: 1884-1885.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
Letters to the Editor:
Read all Letters to the Editor
- Added value in radiologists' interpretation of knee MRIs
- Bernard Chow
- JBJS Online, 21 Mar 2005
[Full text]
- Dr. Luhmann responds to Dr. Chow
- Scott J. Luhmann, et al.
- JBJS Online, 21 Mar 2005
[Full text]
- Decision Making in Knee Injuries of Children and Adolescents
- KRISHNA REDDI BODDU SIVA RAMA, et al.
- JBJS Online, 19 Apr 2005
[Full text]
- Interpretation of MR imaging
- Shigeru Ehara
- JBJS Online, 19 Apr 2005
[Full text]
- Dr. Luhmann responds to Dr. Rama
- Scott J. Luhmann
- JBJS Online, 19 Apr 2005
[Full text]
- Dr. Luhmann responds to Dr. Ehara
- Scott J. Luhmann
- JBJS Online, 19 Apr 2005
[Full text]
- Radiologist interpretation of pediatric knee MRI
- David A. Rubin
- JBJS Online, 28 Apr 2005
[Full text]
|