Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 124, Issue 11, pp 1167–1174 | Cite as

Diagnostic imaging: pitfalls in rheumatology

  • Marcello Zappia
  • Nicola Maggialetti
  • Raffaele NatellaEmail author
  • Alfonso Reginelli
  • Federico Bruno
  • Francesco Di Pietto
  • Luca Brunese
MUSCULOSKELETAL RADIOLOGY

Abstract

Although the diagnosis of arthritis and spondyloarthritis is based on clinical criteria, today the imaging methods are an indispensable aid to the rheumatologist. Imaging has not only the task of helping early diagnosis, but it has also a fundamental role in disease grading and therapeutic monitoring. In this scenario where many publications emphasize the importance of identifying synovitis and erosions at an early stage, it is essential to know the possible pitfalls which can determine both false positives and false negatives. The high variability of the musculoskeletal system anatomy makes it necessary to have a correct knowledge of all anatomical complexes, in order not to confuse them with the pathology. Moreover, the correct and standardized method of the execution and interpretation of the exams, such as ultrasound, is crucial to identifying and correctly monitoring the pathological hallmarks of the arthritis. This paper aims to provide an instrument to radiologists, highlighting the main imaging pitfalls in ultrasound and magnetic resonance which may be encountered in daily practice.

keywords

MRI Arthritis Ultrasound Enthesitis Pitfalls 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Barile A, Arrigoni F, Bruno F et al (2017) Computed tomography and MR imaging in rheumatoid arthritis. Radiol Clin North Am 55:997–1007.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2017.04.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Østergaard M, Edmonds J, McQueen F et al (2005) An introduction to the EULAR–OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas. Ann Rheum Dis 64:i3–i7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carotti M, Galeazzi V, Catucci F et al (2018) Clinical utility of eco-color-power doppler ultrasonography and contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for interpretation and quantification of joint synovitis: a review. Acta Biomed 89:48–77.  https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v89i1-S.7010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wakefield RJ, Balint PV, Szkudlarek M et al (2005) Musculoskeletal ultrasound including definitions for ultrasonographic pathology. J Rheumatol 32:2485–2487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andersen M, Ellegaard K, Hebsgaard JB et al (2014) Ultrasound colour Doppler is associated with synovial pathology in biopsies from hand joints in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a cross-sectional study. Ann Rheum Dis 73:678–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiavaras MM, Jacobson JA, Yablon CM et al (2014) Pitfalls in wrist and hand ultrasound. Am J Roentgenol 203:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zayat AS, Conaghan PG, Sharif M et al (2011) Do non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have a significant effect on detection and grading of ultrasound-detected synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? Results from a randomised study. Ann Rheum Dis 70:1746–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robben SGF, Lequin MH, Diepstraten AFM et al (1999) Anterior joint capsule of the normal hip and in children with transient synovitis: US study with anatomic and histologic correlation. Radiology 210:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacobson JA, Khoury V, Brandon CJ (2015) Ultrasound of the groin: techniques, pathology, and pitfalls. Am J Roentgenol 205:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roth C, Jacobson J, Jamadar D et al (2004) Quadriceps fat pad signal intensity and enlargement on MRI: prevalence and associated findings. Am J Roentgenol 182:1383–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Platzer W (1999) Atlas van de anatomie. SESAM/HBuitgevers, Bewegingsapparaat BaarnGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alves TI, Girish G, Kalume Brigido M, Jacobson JA (2016) US of the knee: scanning techniques, pitfalls, and pathologic conditions. Radiographics 36:1759–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Terslev L, Torp-Pedersen S, Bang N et al (2005) Doppler ultrasound findings in healthy wrists and finger joints before and after use of two different contrast agents. Ann Rheum Dis 64:824–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Precerutti M, Garioni E, Madonia L, Draghi F (2010) US anatomy of the shoulder: pictorial essay. J Ultrasound 13:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Padovano I, Costantino F, Breban M, D’agostino MA (2016) Prevalence of ultrasound synovial inflammatory findings in healthy subjects. Ann Rheum Dis 75:1819–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naredo E, D’agostino MA, Wakefield RJ et al (2013) Reliability of a consensus-based ultrasound score for tenosynovitis in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 72:1328–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robertson BL, Jamadar DA, Jacobson JA et al (2007) Extensor retinaculum of the wrist: sonographic characterization and pseudotenosynovitis appearance. Am J Roentgenol 188:198–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cuomo G, Zappia M, Iudici M et al (2012) The origin of tendon friction rubs in patients with systemic sclerosis: a sonographic explanation. Arthritis Rheum 64:1291–1293.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.34319 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martinoli C, Bianchi S, Derchi LE (1999) Tendon and nerve sonography. Radiol Clin North Am 37:691–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Balint PV, Terslev L, Aegerter P et al (2018) Reliability of a consensus-based ultrasound definition and scoring for enthesitis in spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: an OMERACT US initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 77:1730–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perrotta FM, Astorri D, Zappia M et al (2016) An ultrasonographic study of enthesis in early psoriatic arthritis patients naive to traditional and biologic DMARDs treatment. Rheumatol Int 36:1579–1583.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3562-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zappia M, Cuomo G, Martino MT et al (2016) The effect of foot position on Power doppler ultrasound grading of achilles enthesitis. Rheumatol Int 36:871–874.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3461-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koenig MJ, Torp-Pedersen ST, Christensen R et al (2007) Effect of knee position on ultrasound Doppler findings in patients with patellar tendon hyperaemia (jumper’s knee). Ultraschall der Medizin Eur J Ultrasound 28:479–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gutierrez M, Filippucci E, Grassi W, Rosemffet M (2010) Intratendinous power Doppler changes related to patient position in seronegative spondyloarthritis. J Rheumatol 37:1057–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Madsen KB, Jurik AG (2010) MRI grading method for active and chronic spinal changes in spondyloarthritis. Clin Radiol 65:6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bencardino JT (2004) MR imaging of tendon lesions of the hand and wrist. Magn Reson Imaging Clin 12:333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rousset P, Vuillemin-Bodaghi V, Laredo J-D, Parlier-Cuau C (2010) Anatomic variations in the first extensor compartment of the wrist: accuracy of US. Radiology 257:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jackson WT, Viegas SF, Coon TM et al (1986) Anatomical variations in the first extensor compartment of the wrist. J Bone Joint Surg 68:923–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dierickx C, Ceccarelli E, Conti M et al (2009) Variations of the intra-articular portion of the long head of the biceps tendon: a classification of embryologically explained variations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:556–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moser TP, Cardinal É, Bureau NJ et al (2015) The aponeurotic expansion of the supraspinatus tendon: anatomy and prevalence in a series of 150 shoulder MRIs. Skeletal Radiol 44:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rudez J, Zanetti M (2008) Normal anatomy, variants and pitfalls on shoulder MRI. Eur J Radiol 68:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koplas MC, Winalski CS, Ulmer WH, Recht M (2009) Bilateral congenital absence of the long head of the biceps tendon. Skeletal Radiol 38:715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boutry N, Lardé A, Demondion X et al (2004) Metacarpophalangeal joints at US in asymptomatic volunteers and cadaveric specimens. Radiology 232:716–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McQueen F, Østergaard M, Peterfy C et al (2005) Pitfalls in scoring MR images of rheumatoid arthritis wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints. Ann Rheum Dis 64:i48–i55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wawer R, Budzik JF, Demondion X et al (2014) Carpal pseudoerosions: a plain X-ray interpretation pitfall. Skeletal Radiol 43:1377–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ehara S, El-Khoury GY, Bergman RA (1988) The accessory sacroiliac joint: a common anatomic variant. Am J Roentgenol 150:857–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosa Neto NS, Vitule LF, Gonçalves CR, Goldenstein-Schainberg C (2009) An accessory sacroiliac joint. Scand J Rheumatol 38:496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hadley LA (1950) Accessory sacroiliac articulations with arthritic changes. Radiology 55:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    El Rafei M, Badr S, Lefebvre G et al (2018) Sacroiliac joints: anatomical variations on MR images. Eur Radiol 28:5328–5337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prassopoulos PK, Faflia CP, Voloudaki AE, Gourtsoyiannis NC (1999) Sacroiliac joints: anatomical variants on CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 23:323–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vleeming A, Schuenke MD, Masi AT et al (2012) The sacroiliac joint: an overview of its anatomy, function and potential clinical implications. J Anat 221:537–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bakker PAC, van den Berg R, Lenczner G et al (2017) Can we use structural lesions seen on MRI of the sacroiliac joints reliably for the classification of patients according to the ASAS axial spondyloarthritis criteria? Data from the DESIR cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 76:392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversity of MoliseCampobassoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento Medico-Chirurgico di Internistica Clinica e Sperimentale F Magrassi e A LanzaraUniversita degli studi della Campania Luigi VanvitelliNaplesItaly
  3. 3.Department of Precision MedicineUniversity of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”NaplesItaly
  4. 4.Department of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, S. Salvatore HospitalUniversity of L’AquilaL’AquilaItaly
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyPineta Grande HospitalCastel VolturnoItaly

Personalised recommendations