Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Die Diagnostik von Knorpelveränderungen ist ein zentraler Bestandteil in der Abklärung akuter und chronischer Gelenkbeschwerden. Die CT- und MR-Arthrographie gehören neben der nativen MRT zu den etablierten Techniken für die dezidierte Beurteilung des Gelenkknorpels. Für die Anwendung in der klinischen Diagnostik sollten Radiologen deren Anwendungsmöglichkeiten kennen und sichere Techniken zur Kontrastmittelinjektion beherrschen.
Ziel
Dieser Übersichtsartikel erläutert die Techniken der Schnittbild-Arthrographie an verschiedenen Gelenken, gibt einen Überblick über die allgemeine und gelenkspezifische Durchführung sowie über übliche Indikationen in der Knorpeldiagnostik.
Material und Methoden
Es erfolgte eine selektive PubMed-Literaturrecherche zu den Stichworten „arthrography“, „CT arthrography“, „MR arthrography“, „arthrography cartilage“, „arthrography wrist“, „arthrography elbow“, „arthrography shoulder“, „arthrography hip“, „arthrography knee“, „arthrography ankle“, „arthrography complications“, „arthrography imaging guidance“ „osteochondral lesion“, „cartilage imaging“, „cartilage lesion“.
Ergebnisse und Schlussfolgerung
Die CT- und MR-Arthrographie sind nützliche und sichere Verfahren in der Knorpeldiagnostik. Sie haben ihren Stellenwert in der Verifizierung und Spezifizierung chondraler Pathologien, in der Regel nach bereits erfolgter nativer MRT, und spielen insbesondere bei der Stabilitätsbeurteilung und Therapieentscheidung osteochondraler Läsionen eine wichtige Rolle. Die CT-Arthrographie ist nicht nur Ersatzverfahren bei MRT-Kontraindikationen, sondern aufgrund ihrer höheren Auflösung für die Knorpelbeurteilung an kleinen Gelenken (Handgelenk, Ellenbogen, Sprunggelenk) der MR-Arthrographie tendenziell überlegen und kann in diesen Fällen auch als primäre Technik eingesetzt werden. Für die bildgesteuerte Gelenkpunktion ist die Fluoroskopie aktuell noch am Weitesten verbreitet, die ultraschallgesteuerte Punktion gewinnt aber zunehmend an Bedeutung. Die Gelenkuntersuchung unter Traktion bietet einen vielversprechenden Ansatz zur Verbesserung der Knorpeldarstellung, gehört jedoch noch nicht zur klinischen Routine.
Abstract
Background
The imaging of chondral pathologies is an essential part in the work-up of acute and chronic joint diseases. Besides conventional MR imaging, CT and MR arthrography are well-established methods in evaluating articular cartilage. The application of these techniques requires knowledge of indications and safe injection procedures by the performing radiologist.
Purpose
Our goal is to describe the techniques of cross-sectional arthrographies of different joints, give an overview of general and joint-specific considerations for practical application as well as provide typical indications for cartilage imaging.
Materials and methods
A selective PubMed literature search concerning “arthrography”, “CT arthrography”, “MR arthrography”, “arthrography cartilage”, “arthrography wrist”, “arthrography elbow”, “arthrography shoulder”, “arthrography hip”, “arthrography knee”, “arthrography ankle”, “arthrography complications”, “arthrography imaging guidance” “osteochondral lesion”, “cartilage imaging” and “cartilage lesion” was performed.
Results and conclusion
CT and MR arthrography are valuable and safe tools in cartilage imaging. They are useful to verify and specify chondral pathologies, usually after conventional MR imaging, and have an important role in evaluating the stability and therefore in therapeutic decision making of osteochondral lesions. CT arthrography is not only a substitute technique in case of MR contraindications, it can be advantageous in small joints (wrist, elbow, ankle) compared to MR arthrography due to its higher image resolution. Fluoroscopic guided joint puncture is still the most commonly used image guidance method, but the role of ultrasound is steadily increasing. Joint traction in MR arthrography is a promising technique to improve cartilage visualization, though it is not yet used in clinical routine imaging.
Literatur
Omoumi P, Mercier GA, Lecouvet F, Simoni P, Vande Berg BC (2009) CT arthrography, MR arthrography, PET, and scintigraphy in osteoarthritis. Radiol Clin North Am 47(4):595–615
Egloff C, Hügle T, Valderrabano V (2012) Biomechanics and pathomechanisms of osteoarthritis. Swiss Med Wkly 142:w13583
Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Dieppe PA, Hirsch R, Helmick CG, Jordan JM, Kington RS, Lane NE, Nevitt MC, Zhang Y, Sowers M, McAlindon T, Spector TD, Poole AR, Yanovski SZ, Ateshian G, Sharma L, Buckwalter JA, Brandt KD, Fries JF (2000) Osteoarthritis: New insights. Part 1: The disease and its risk factors. Ann Intern Med 133(8):635–646
Kramer J, Recht MP, Imhof H, Stiglbaüer R, Engel A (1994) Postcontrast MR arthrography in assessment of cartilage lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 18(2):218–224
Sconfienza LM, Albano D, Messina C, Silvestri E, Tagliafico AS (2018) How, when, why in magnetic resonance arthrography: An international survey by the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR). Eur Radiol 28(6):2356–2368
Guntern DV, Pfirrmann CW, Schmid MR, Zanetti M, Binkert CA, Schneeberger AG, Hodler J (2003) Articular cartilage lesions of the glenohumeral joint: Diagnostic effectiveness of MR arthrography and prevalence in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. Radiology 226(1):165–170
AG Muskuloskelettale Radiologie der DRG Indikationen zur direkten CT- und MR-Arthrographie. www.ag-msk.drg.de/media/document/2083/Empfehlungen-Arthro-F.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20.03.2019
Bergin D, Schweitzer ME (2003) Indirect magnetic resonance arthrography. Skeletal Radiol 32(10):551–558
Schulte-Altedorneburg G, Gebhard M, Wohlgemuth WA, Fischer W, Zentner J, Wegener R, Balzer T, Bohndorf K (2003) MR arthrography: Pharmacology, efficacy and safety in clinical trials. Skeletal Radiol 32(1):1–12
Cerezal L, Llopis E, Canga A, Rolón A (2008) MR arthrography of the ankle: Indications and technique. Radiol Clin North Am 46(6):973–994
Pozzi G, Stradiotti P, Parra CG, Zagra L, Sironi S, Zerbi A (2009) Femoro-acetabular impingement: Can indirect MR arthrography be considered a valid method to detect endoarticular damage? A preliminary study. Hip Int 19(4):386–391
Buckwalter KA (2006) CT arthrography. Clin Sports Med 25(4):899–915
Gersing AS, Schwaiger BJ, Wörtler K, Jungmann PM (2018) Dezidierte Knorpelbildgebung zur Detektion von Knorpelverletzungen und osteochondralen Läsionen. Radiologe 58(5):422–432
Llopis E, Fernandez E, Cerezal L (2012) MR and CT arthrography of the hip. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 16(1):42–56
Weber MA, Wünnemann F, Jungmann PM, Kuni B, Rehnitz C (2017) Moderne Knorpelbildgebung des Sprunggelenkes. Rofo 189(10):945–956. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-110861
Simoni P, Leyder PP, Albert A, Malchair F, Maréchal C, Scarciolla L, Beomonte Zobel B, Alvarez Miezentseva V, Gillet P (2014) Optimization of computed tomography (CT) arthrography of hip for the visualization of cartilage: An in vitro study. Skeletal Radiol 43(2):169–178
Grainger AJ, Elliott JM, Campbell RS, Tirman PF, Steinbach LS, Genant HK (2000) Direct MR arthrography: A review of current use. Clin Radiol 55(3):163–176
Messina C, Banfi G, Aliprandi A, Mauri G, Secchi F, Sardanelli F, Sconfienza LM (2016) Ultrasound guidance to perform intra-articular injection of gadolinium-based contrast material for magnetic resonance arthrography as an alternative to fluoroscopy: The time is now. Eur Radiol 26(5):1221–1225
Binkert CA, Verdun FR, Zanetti M, Pfirrmann CW, Hodler J (2003) CT arthrography of the glenohumeral joint: CT fluoroscopy versus conventional CT and fluoroscopy—Comparison of image-guidance techniques. Radiology 229(1):153–158
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2008) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Report, volume 1
Lungu E, Moser TP (2015) A practical guide for performing arthrography under fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance. Insights Imaging 6(6):601–610
Hodler J (2008) Technical errors in MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol 37(1):9–18
Steinbach LS, Palmer WE, Schweitzer ME (2002) Special focus session. MR arthrography. Radiographics 22(5):1223–1246
Kralik SF, Singhal KK, Frank MS, Ladd LM (2018) Evaluation of gadolinium deposition in the brain after MR arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211(5):1063–1067
Foremny GB, Pretell-Mazzini J, Jose J, Subhawong TK (2015) Risk of bleeding associated with interventional musculoskeletal radiology procedures. A comprehensive review of the literature. Skeletal Radiol 44(5):619–627
Hugo PC 3rd, Newberg AH, Newman JS, Wetzner SM (1998) Complications of arthrography. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2(4):345–348
Newberg AH, Munn CS, Robbins AH (1985) Complications of arthrography. Radiology 155(3):605–606
Chung CB, Dwek JR, Feng S, Resnick D (2001) MR arthrography of the glenohumeral joint: A tailored approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177(1):217–219
Omoumi P, Rubini A, Dubuc JE, Vande Berg BC, Lecouvet FE (2015) Diagnostic performance of CT-arthrography and 1.5T MR-arthrography for the assessment of glenohumeral joint cartilage: A comparative study with arthroscopic correlation. Eur Radiol 25(4):961–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3469-2
Jarraya M, Roemer FW, Gale HI, Landreau P, D’Hooghe P, Guermazi A (2016) MR-arthrography and CT-arthrography in sports-related glenolabral injuries: A matched descriptive illustration. Insights Imaging 7(2):167–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0462-5
Lecouvet FE, Dorzée B, Dubuc JE, Vande Berg BC, Jamart J, Malghem J (2007) Cartilage lesions of the glenohumeral joint: Diagnostic effectiveness of multidetector spiral CT arthrography and comparison with arthroscopy. Eur Radiol 17(7):1763–1771
Shahabpour M, Kichouh M, Laridon E, Gielen JL, De Mey J (2008) The effectiveness of diagnostic imaging methods for the assessment of soft tissue and articular disorders of the shoulder and elbow. Eur J Radiol 65(2):194–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.012
Ruchelsman DE, Hall MP, Youm T (2010) Osteochondritis dissecans of the capitellum: Current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18(9):557–567
Holland P, Davies AM, Cassar-Pullicino VN (1994) Computed tomographic arthrography in the assessment of osteochondritis dissecans of the elbow. Clin Radiol 49(4):231–235
Waldt S, Bruegel M, Ganter K, Kuhn V, Link TM, Rummeny EJ, Woertler K (2005) Comparison of multislice CT arthrography and MR arthrography for the detection of articular cartilage lesions of the elbow. Eur Radiol 15(4):784–791
Lee RK, Griffith JF, Yuen BT, Ng AW, Yeung DK (2016) Elbow MR arthrography with traction. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160378
Donati OF, Nordmeyer-Massner J, Nanz D, White LM, Tami I, Vich M, Pruessmann KP, Andreisek G (2011) Direct MR arthrography of cadaveric wrists: Comparison between MR imaging at 3.0T and 7.0T and gross pathologic inspection. J Magn Reson Imaging 34(6):1333–1340
Dallaudière B, Moreau-Durieux MH, Larbi A, Perozziello A, Huot P, Meyer P, Pesquer L (2016) Effects of axial traction during direct MR-arthrography of the wrist in sports injuries. J Belg Soc Radiol 100(1):72
Lee RK, Griffith JF, Tang WK, Ng AW, Yeung DK (2017) Effect of traction on wrist joint space and cartilage visibility with and without MR arthrography. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160932
Duc SR, Hodler J, Schmid MR, Zanetti M, Mengiardi B, Dora C, Pfirrmann CW (2006) Prospective evaluation of two different injection techniques for MR arthrography of the hip. Eur Radiol 16(2):473–478
Czerny C, Hofmann S, Urban M, Tschauner C, Neuhold A, Pretterklieber M, Recht MP, Kramer J (1999) MR arthrography of the adult acetabular capsular-labral complex: Correlation with surgery and anatomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173(2):345–349
Schueller G, Schueller-Weidekamm C (2012) Koxarthrose – Eine radiologische Annäherung und Leitfaden. Radiologe 52(2):156–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-011-2237-4
Neuhold A, Czerny C, Wicke I, Liederer M (2002) Detektion freier Gelenkskörper mit der MR-Arthrographie (Abstract ESSR 2002 Valencia)
Pfirrmann CW, Duc SR, Zanetti M et al (2008) MR arthrography of acetabular cartilage delamination in femoroacetabular cam impingement. Radiology 249:236–241
Sutter R, Zubler V, Hoffmann A et al (2014) Hip MRI: How useful is intraarticular contrast material for evaluating surgically proven lesions of the labrum and articular cartilage? AJR Am J Roentgenol 202(01):160–169
Davies O, Grammatopoulos G, Pollard TCB, Andrade AJ (2018) Factors increasing risk of failure following hip arthroscopy: A case control study. J Hip Preserv Surg 5(3):240–246
Weber MA, Merle C, Rehnitz C, Gotterbarm T (2016) Moderne radiologische Bildgebung der Arthrose des Hüftgelenks unter Berücksichtigung der Präarthrosen. Rofo 188(7):635–651
Schmaranzer F, Klauser A, Kogler M, Henninger B, Forstner T, Reichkendler M, Schmaranzer E (2015) Diagnostic performance of direct traction MR arthrography of the hip: Detection of chondral and labral lesions with arthroscopic comparison. Eur Radiol 25(6):1721–1730
Chung CB, Isaza IL, Angulo M, Boucher R, Hughes T (2005) MR arthrography of the knee: How, why, when. Radiol Clin North Am 43(4):733–746
Moser T, Moussaoui A, Dupuis M, Douzal V, Dosch JC (2008) Anterior approach for knee arthrography: Tolerance evaluation and comparison of two routes. Radiology 246(1):193–197
Kramer J, Stiglbauer R, Engel A, Prayer I, Imhof H (1992) MR contrast arthrography (MRA) in osteo-chondrosis dissecans. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16:254–260
Gagliardi JA, Chung EM, Chandnani VP (1994) Detection and staging of chondromalacia patellae: Relative efficacies of conventional MR imaging, MR arthrography and CT arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 163:629–636
Vande Berg BC, Lecouvet FE, Poilvache P, Jamart J, Materne R, Lengele B, Maldague B, Malghem J (2002) Assessment of knee cartilage in cadavers with dual-detector spiral CT arthrography and MR imaging. Radiology 222(2):430–436
Sciulli RL, Boutin RD, Brown RR et al (1999) Evaluation of the postoperative meniscus of the knee: A study comparing conventional arthrography, conventional MR imaging, MR arthrography with iodinated contrast material and MR arthrography with gadoliniumbased contrast material. Skeletal Radiol 28:508–514
Schmid MR, Pfirrmann CW, Hodler J, Vienne P, Zanetti M (2003) Cartilage lesions in the ankle joint: Comparison of MR arthrography and CT arthrography. Skeletal Radiol 32(5):259–265
Kirschke JS, Braun S, Baum T, Holwein C, Schaeffeler C, Imhoff AB, Rummeny EJ, Woertler K, Jungmann PM (2016) Diagnostic value of CT arthrography for evaluation of osteochondral lesions at the ankle. Biomed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3594253
Kramer J, Stiglbauer R, Engel A et al (1992) MR contrast arthrography (MRA) in osteochondritis dissecans. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16:254–260
Jungmann PM, Baum T, Schaeffeler C, Sauerschnig M, Brucker PU, Mann A, Ganter C, Bieri O, Rummeny EJ, Woertler K, Bauer JS (2015) 3.0T MR imaging of the ankle: Axial traction for morphological cartilage evaluation, quantitative T2 mapping and cartilage diffusion imaging-A preliminary study. Eur J Radiol 84(8):1546–1554
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Interessenkonflikt
B. Klaan, F. Wuennemann, L. Kintzelé, A.S. Gersing und M.-A. Weber geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klaan, B., Wuennemann, F., Kintzelé, L. et al. MR- und CT-Arthrographie zur Knorpeldiagnostik. Radiologe 59, 710–721 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-019-0564-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-019-0564-z
Schlüsselwörter
- Gelenkknorpel
- Osteochondrale Läsionen
- Muskuloskeletale Bildgebung
- Magnetresonanztomographie
- Computertomographie