Radiologic Imaging Techniques

Abstract

Accurate diagnosis with the use of radiological imaging is often required if clinical findings in sports injuries are nonspecific. The preferred imaging modality is multifactorial. Often an optimal imaging pathway is not available. This chapter reviews the general imaging strategies that can be employed to diagnose and grade sports injuries. Radiographs in two orthogonal perpendicular projections are generally the first and often the only imaging needed for the evaluation of fractures. In case of clinical suspicion of radiographic occult fracture, MRI is the method of choice. The presence of radiopaque foreign bodies, intra-articular bone fragments, or advanced degenerative joint changes and the results after fixation can be assessed with radiographs.

Major advantages of US are its high spatial resolution for superficial structures, low cost, availability at short notice, ease of examination, short examination times, and lack of radiation exposure. Since approximately 30 % of sports injuries deal with muscle and tendon injuries, ultrasound (US) plays a major role in primary diagnosis of sports traumatology. US palpation, active and passive dynamic US study, and color-power Doppler imaging may be very helpful to the correct diagnosis. In patients with tendinosis, angiogenesis in the tendon may be correlated with clinical symptoms and discriminates early from advanced stages of tendinopathy. Furthermore, US provides image guidance for interventional procedures. For better evaluating deeply located structures, other (cross-sectional) imaging modalities may be required. Other disadvantage of ultrasound includes operator dependency.

CT imaging, by virtue of its excellent multiplanar capability and submillimeter spatial resolution, is a valuable imaging tool for the evaluation of all kinds of sports injuries. It has proved to be an effective method for documenting bone injuries particularly in complex bony structures such as the wrist and pelvis and may often show post-traumatic changes not shown by radiography. It may be helpful for the assessment of comminuted fractures, improving visualization of the fracture’s extent and location, shape and position of the fracture fragments, and the condition of articular surfaces. New iterative CT reconstruction algorithms and cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) techniques are developed to reduce radiation dose with similar or even increased image quality.

The major advantage of CT arthrography (CTA) is the assessment of the cartilage lesions continuous with the articular surface of the cartilage. Limitations of CTA include its invasiveness, possible allergic reaction, use of ionizing radiation, and poor extra-articular soft tissue contrast resolution.

Magnetic resonance imaging is the most complete radiological imaging technique with accurate evaluation of musculoskeletal soft tissue, bone, and joint structures. Its major indication in sports injury is internal derangement of joints, occult bone fractures, stress reaction and fracture of bone, and deeply located muscle and tendon tears. Acute, subacute, and active chronic lesions are demonstrated with high conspicuity due to their increased water content that produces a “light bulb effect” on fat-suppressed sequences with long repetition time (TR); this sequence has become the cornerstone of musculoskeletal imaging.

Equipment and techniques for MRI vary widely; it is generally accepted that high-field-strength magnets provide the highest quality images.

Major indications for MR arthrography (MRA) are labral lesions of the shoulder and hip joint, TFC and intrinsic ligament lesions of the wrist, and grade III osteochondral lesion of the talus.

Keywords

Cone Beam Computerize Tomography Sport Injury Spin Echo Effective Radiation Dose Myositis Ossificans 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

CR

Computerized radiography

CT

Computerized tomography

CTA

Computerized tomography with arthrography

DICOM

Digital imaging and communications in medicine

DWI

Diffusion-weighted MR imaging

EFOVS

Extended-field-of-view ultrasonography

e-MRI

Extremity-only small-bore MRI

FAI

Femoroacetabular impingement

FS

Fat suppression

GRE

Gradient echo

LT

Lunotriquetral (intrinsic carpal ligament)

MRA

Magnetic resonance arthrography

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

MTJ

Musculotendinous junction

PRP

Platelet-rich plasma injection therapy

SE

Spin echo

SL

Scapholunate (intrinsic carpal ligament)

SNR

Signal-to-noise ratio

SPACE

Sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip-angle evolution

STIR

Short-tau inversion recovery

TE

Echo time

TR

Repetition time

TSE

Turbo spin echo

References

  1. ACR Appropriateness Criteria (2012) Chronic ankle pain, suspected ankle instability, variant 5. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria/Diagnostic/Musculoskeletal-Imaging
  2. Berkoff DJ, Miller LE, Block JE (2012) Clinical utility of ultrasound guidance for intra-articular knee injections: a review. Clin Interv Aging 7:89–95PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berland LL, Smith JK (1998) Once again, technology creates new opportunities. Radiology 209:327–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohndorf K, Imhof H, Pope TL Jr (2001) Musculoskeletal imaging, 1st edn. Thieme, Stuttgart/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Breitenseher MJ (1999) Acute ankle injuries. Radiologe 39(1):16–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Connel DG, Janzen DL, Grunfeld A, Clark TW (1996) Using tomography to diagnose occult ankle fractures. Ann Emerg Med 27(5):600–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook JL, Purdam CR (2009) Is tendon pathology a continuum? A pathology model to explain the clinical presentation of load-induced tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med 43(6):409–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Disler DG, Recht MP, McCauley TR (2000) MR imaging of articular cartilage. Skeletal Radiol 29:367–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans CS, Harris NS (2012) Ultrasound and ski resort clinics: mapping out the potential benefits. Wilderness Environ Med 23(3):239–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleckenstein JL, Archer BT, Barker BA, Vaughan JT, Parkey RW, Peshock RM (1991) Fast shorttau inversion-recovery MRI. Radiology 179:499–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Galban CJ, Maderwald S, Uffmann K et al (2004) Diffusive sensitivity to muscle architecture: a magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging study of the human calf. Eur J Appl Physiol 93:253–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gold GE (2003) Dynamic and functional imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Semin Musculoskeletal Radiol 7:245–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heidenreich WF, Paretzke HG, Jacob P (1997) No evidence of increased tumor rates below 2000 mSv in the atomic bomb survivor data. Radiat Environ Biophys 25:205–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoksrud A, Torgalsen T, Harstad H, Haugen S, Andersen TE, Risberg MA, Bahr R (2012) Ultrasound-guided sclerosis of neovessels in patellar tendinopathy: a prospective study of 101 patients. Am J Sports Med 40(3):542–547. doi: 10.1177/0363546511433012. Epub 2012 Jan 11
  15. Jacobson JA, Bedi A, Sekiya JK, Blankenbaker DG (2012) Evaluation of the painful athletic hip: imaging options and imaging-guided injections. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199(3):516–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Koivisto J, Kiljunen T, Wolff J, Kortesniemi M (2013) Assessment of effective radiation dose of an extremity CBCT, MSCT and conventional X ray for knee area using mosfet dosemeters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 157(4):515–524 [Epub ahead of print]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD (2000) Radiologic evaluation of soft tissue masses: a current perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:575–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Little MP (2003) Risks associated with ionizing radiation. Br Med Bull 68:259–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. McCollough CH, Schueler BA (2000) Calculation of effective dose. Med Phys 27:828–837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Newberg AH, Munn CS, Robbins AH (1985) Complications of arthrography. Radiology 155:605–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Öhberg L, Alfrendson H (2002) Ultrasound guided sclerosis of neovessels in painful chronic Achilles tendinosis: pilot study of a new treatment. Br J Sports Med 36(3):173–175; discussion 176–177PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Parry RA, Glaze SA, Archer BR (1999) Typical patient radiation doses in diagnostic radiology. The AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for residents. Radiographics 19:1289–1302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Peetrons P (2002) Ultrasound of muscles. Eur Radiol 12:35–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Peterson L, Renstrom P (1986) Trauma in sport. Nurs RSA 1:20–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ulbrich EJ, Zubler V, Sutter R, Espinosa N, Pfirrmann CW, Zanetti M (2013) Ligaments of the Lisfranc joint in MRI: 3D-SPACE (sampling perfection with application optimized contrasts using different flip-angle evolution) sequence compared to three orthogonal proton-density fat-saturated (PD fs) sequences. Skeletal Radiol 42(3):399–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Vande Berg BC, Lecouvet FE, Poilvache P, Maldague B, Malghem J (2002) Spiral CT arthrography of the knee: technique and value in the assessment of internal derangement of the knee. Eur Radiol 12:1800–1810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Weinberg EP, Adams MJ, Hollenberg GM (1998) Color Doppler sonography of patellar tendinosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:743–744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Weng L, Tirumalai AP, Lowery CM, Nock LF, Gustafson DE, Von Behren PL, Kim JH (1997) Ultrasound extended-field-of-view imaging technology. Radiology 203:877–880CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Zanetti M, Metzdorf A, Kundert H-P et al (2003) Achilles tendons: clinical relevance of neovascularization diagnosed on power Doppler US. Radiology 227:556–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAntwerp University HospitalEdegemBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Sports MedicineAntwerp University HospitalEdegemBelgium
  3. 3.Department of MedicineAntwerp UniversityEdegemBelgium

Personalised recommendations