Comparison between conventional MRI and weight-bearing positional MRI reveals important differences in radiological measurements of the patellofemoral joint

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Objective: To compare radiological measurements of the patellofemoral joint (PFJ) morphology and measurement reproducibility across the following scanning modalities: (a) 3 T supine MRI, (b) 0.25 T supine MRI and (c) standing 0.25 T MRI. Methods: Forty patients referred to MRI of the knee were scanned by high field 3 T MRI in supine position and low field 0.25 T positional (pMRI) in supine and standing positions. Radiological measurements for assessment of femoral trochlear morphology, patellar tracking, patellar height and knee flexion angle were compared across scanning situations by one-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Measurement reliability and agreement were assessed by calculation of ICC, SEM and MDC. Results: Patellar tracking differed across scanning situations, particularly between 3.0 T supine and 0.25 T standing position. Mean differences are the following: patella bisect offset (PBO): 9.6%, p ≤ 0.001; patellar tilt angle (PTA): 3.1°, p ≤ 0.001; tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distance (TT-TG): 2.7 mm, p ≤ 0.001). Measurements revealed slight knee joint flexion in supine and slight hyperextension in the standing position (MD: 9.3°, P ≤ 0.001), likely related to the observed differences in patellar tracking. Reproducibility was comparable across MRI field strengths. In general, PBO, PTA and TT-TG were the most robust measurements in terms of reproducibility and agreement across scanning situations (ICC range: 0.85–0.94). Conclusion: Significant differences in important patellofemoral morphology measurements were observed between supine and standing MRI scanning positions. These were unlikely due to physiological factors such as changes in joint loading but rather induced by slight differences in knee flexion angle. This emphasises the need to standardise knee positioning during scanning, particularly for weight-bearing positional MRI before clinical use.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftSkeletal Radiology
Vol/bind52
Udgave nummer8
Sider (fra-til)1525-1534
Antal sider10
ISSN0364-2348
DOI
StatusUdgivet - aug. 2023

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
We want to thank radiographers Rasmus Bouert and Janus Damm Nybing for providing MRI technical assistance. We wish to acknowledge Professor Marius Henriksen, for the helpful advice on data analyses. We thank the Danish Council for Independent Research for kindly providing the first author an unrestricted grant (grant no. DFF-4004-00593B) and thank the Research Council, Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg Hospital for additional funding. The positional MRI unit (G-scan, Esaote SpA, Genova, Italy) used in this study was kindly donated by the Oak Foundation through the Parker Institute, Frederiksberg Copenhagen.

Funding Information:
We want to thank radiographers Rasmus Bouert and Janus Damm Nybing for providing MRI technical assistance. We wish to acknowledge Professor Marius Henriksen, for the helpful advice on data analyses. We thank the Danish Council for Independent Research for kindly providing the first author an unrestricted grant (grant no. DFF-4004-00593B) and thank the Research Council, Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg Hospital for additional funding. The positional MRI unit (G-scan, Esaote SpA, Genova, Italy) used in this study was kindly donated by the Oak Foundation through the Parker Institute, Frederiksberg Copenhagen.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International Skeletal Society (ISS).

ID: 389916475