Performance of a rapid two-sequence screening protocol for osteomyelitis of the foot.
Foot
MRI
Osteomyelitis
Pedal
Screening
Journal
Skeletal radiology
ISSN: 1432-2161
Titre abrégé: Skeletal Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7701953
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
23
08
2019
accepted:
22
12
2019
revised:
13
12
2019
pubmed:
16
1
2020
medline:
9
2
2021
entrez:
16
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Compare a two sequence protocol to a standard protocol in the detection of pedal osteomyelitis (OM) and abscesses and to identify patients that benefit from a full protocol. One hundred thirty-two foot MRIs ordered to assess for OM were enrolled, and the following items were extracted from the clinical reports: use of IV contrast, the presence of OM, reactive osteitis, and a soft tissue abscess. Using only one T1 nonfat-suppressed and one fluid sensitive fat-suppressed sequences, two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed each case for the presence of OM, reactive osteitis, or an abscess. A Kappa test was calculated to assess for interobserver agreement, and diagnostic performance was determined. The McNemar test was used to assess for the effect of contrast. Agreement between both observers and the clinical report on the presence of osteomyelitis was substantial ( k = 0.63 and 0.72, p < 0.001), while the agreement for abscess was fair (k = 0.29 and 0.38, p < 0.001). For osteomyelitis, both observers showed good accuracy (0.85 and 0.86). When screening bone for a normal versus abnormal case, this method was highly sensitive (0.97-0.98), but was less sensitive for abscess (0.63-0.75). Fifty-one percent of exams used contrast, and it did impact the diagnosis of abscess for one observer. This rapid protocol is accurate in making the diagnosis of OM, and its high sensitivity makes it useful to screen for patients that would benefit from a full protocol.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31938864
doi: 10.1007/s00256-019-03367-x
pii: 10.1007/s00256-019-03367-x
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
977-984Références
Emerg Radiol. 2020 Feb;27(1):9-16
pubmed: 31463805
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 15;376(24):2367-2375
pubmed: 28614678
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 Nov-Dec;50(6):663-7
pubmed: 21907594
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jun;198(6):W581-8
pubmed: 22623574
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2018 Nov - Dec;57(6):1137-1139
pubmed: 30181032
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019 Jun;19(3):279-286
pubmed: 30625012
Foot Ankle Spec. 2018 Oct;11(5):433-443
pubmed: 29291264
Skeletal Radiol. 2017 Oct;46(10):1327-1333
pubmed: 28497161
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2018 Sep - Oct;57(5):919-923
pubmed: 29880324
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017 Oct;27(7):871-875
pubmed: 28547674
Skeletal Radiol. 2019 Jan;48(1):103-108
pubmed: 29915937
Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012;8(1):23-34
pubmed: 22833776
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2009 Apr;25(4):226-30
pubmed: 19382319
Radiology. 2002 Sep;224(3):649-55
pubmed: 12202694
Med Princ Pract. 2005 May-Jun;14(3):165-72
pubmed: 15863990
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000 Mar-Apr;24(2):284-7
pubmed: 10752894
J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Aug;5(8):881-6
pubmed: 18657783
Skeletal Radiol. 2003 Oct;32(10):567-74
pubmed: 12942204
Mil Med. 2017 Jan;182(1):e1619-e1625
pubmed: 28051983
Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jan 22;167(2):125-32
pubmed: 17242312
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(12):1019-35
pubmed: 19014203
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Jul;11(7):RC01-RC04
pubmed: 28892986
Radiology. 1995 Aug;196(2):557-64
pubmed: 7617877
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jan;178(1):215-22
pubmed: 11756124