Advertisement

Musculoskeletal Imaging Techniques

  • Ian PressneyEmail author
  • Asif Saifuddin
Chapter
Part of the Orthopaedic Study Guide Series book series (ORTHSTUDY)

Abstract

With the increasing demand, availability and broad range of imaging techniques at the disposal of the orthopaedic surgeon, it is paramount that they must have at least a basic understanding of the principles around image acquisition. Ultimately, this increase in background knowledge should augment and improve image interpretation skills and guide appropriate image requesting, which carries inherent radiation risks for patients.

References

  1. 1.
    De Certaines JD, Larcher T, Duda D, Azzabou N, Eliat P-A, et al. Application of texture analysis to muscle MRI:1- what kind of information should be expected from texture analysis? EPJ Nonlinear Biomedical Physics. 2015;3:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nicolaou S, Liang T, Murphy DT, Korzan JR, Ouellette H, Munk P. Dual-energy CT: a promising new technique for assessment of the musculoskeletal system. AJR. 2012;199:S78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morsbach F, Bickelhaupt S, Wanner GA, Krauss A, Schmidt B, Alkadhi H. Reduction of metal artefacts from hip prostheses on CT images of the pelvis: value of iterative reconstructions. Radiology. 2013;268:237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andersson KM, Nowik P, Persliden J, Thunberg P, Norrman E. Metal artefact reduction in CT imaging of hip prostheses- an evaluation of commercial techniques provided by four vendors. Br J Radiol. 2014;2015(88):237–44.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tuominen EKJ, Kankare J, Koskinen SK, Mattila KT. Weight-bearing CT imaging of the lower extremity. AJR. 2013;200:146–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drakonaki EE, Allen GM, Wilson DJ. Ultrasound elastography for musculoskeletal applications. BJR. 2012;85:1435–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loizides A, Peer S, Plaikner M, Djurdevic T, Gruber H. Perfusion pattern of musculoskeletal masses using contrast-enhanced ultrasound: a helpful tool for characterisation? Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1803–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stramare R, Gazzola M, Coran A, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings in soft-tissue lesions: preliminary results. J Ultrasound. 2013;16:21–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiocco U, Stramare R, Coren A, et al. Vascular perfusion kinetics by contrast-enhanced ultrasound are related to synovial microvascularity in the joints of psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34:1903–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karavida N, Notopoulos A. Radiation synovectomy: an effective alternative treatment for inflamed small joints. Hippokratia. 2010;14:22–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Friedman K, Chandarana H, et al. Current status of hybrid PET/MRI in oncologic imaging. AJR. 2016;1:162–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee IS, Jin YH, Hong SH, Yang S-O. Musculoskeletal applications of PET/MR. Semin MSK Radiol. 2014;18:203–16.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Currie S, Hoggard N, Craven IJ, Hadjivassiliou M. Understanding MRI: basic MR physics for physicians. Postgrad Med J. 2013;89:209–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hodgson R. The basic science of MRI. Orthop Trauma. 2010;25:119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luypaert R, Boujraf S, Sourbron S, Osteaux M. Diffusion and perfusion MRI: basic physics. Eur J Radiol. 2001;38:19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tarantino U, Fanucci E, Iundusi R, Celi M, Altobelli S, Gasbarra E, Simonetti G, Manenti G. Lumbar spine MRI in upright position for diagnosing acute and chronic low back pain: statistical analysisof morphological changes. J Orthop Traumatol. 2013;14:15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alyas F, Connell D, Saifuddin A. Upright positional MRI of the lumbar spine. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:1035–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu H-TH, Chang C-Y, Chang H, Yen C-C, Cheng H, Chen PC-S, Chiou H-J. Magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy of musculoskeletal lesions. JCMA. 2012;75:160–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hesper T, Hosalkar HS, Bittersohl D, Welsh GH, Krauspe R, Zilkens C, Bittersohl B. T2* mapping for articular cartilage assessment: principles, current applications, and future prospects. Skelet Radiol. 2014;43:1429–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guermazi A, Alizai H, Crema MD, Trattnig S, Regatte RR, Roemer FW. Compositional MRI techniques for evaluation of cartilage degeneration in osteoarthritis. Osteoarth Cartilage. 2015;23:1639–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drape J-L. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal tumours. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99S:S115–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Partovi S, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Bhojwani N, Karmonik C, Maurer M, Robbin MR. Advanced noncontrast MR imaging in musculoskeletal radiology. Radiol Clin N Am. 2015;53:549–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sources for Additional Studying

  1. Allisy-Roberts PJ, Williams JR. Farr’s physics for medical imaging. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2007.Google Scholar
  2. Jacobson JA. Fundamentals of musculoskeletal ultrasound. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. Bianchi S, Martinoli C. Ultrasound of the musculoskeletal system. Berlin: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Calleja M, Alam A, Wilson D, Bradley K. Basic science: nuclear medicine in skeletal imaging. Curr Orthop. 2005;19:34–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. McKie S, Brittenden J. Basic science: magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Orthop. 2005;19:13–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mc Robbie DW, Moore EA, Graves MJ, Prince MR. MRI from picture to proton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Saifuddin A. Musculoskeletal MRI. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThe Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital TrustStanmoreUK

Personalised recommendations