nach oben

Erschienen in:

13.05.2023 | Musculoskeletal

Diagnostic performance comparison of conventional radiography to magnetic resonance imaging for suspected osteomyelitis of the extremities: a multi-reader study

verfasst von: Prajwal Gowda, Oganes Ashikyan, Parham Pezeshk, Mina Guirguis, Holden Archer, Diana Hoang, Yin Xi, Avneesh Chhabra

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 11/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To determine whether MRI provides improved diagnostic accuracy compared to radiography for the diagnosis of extremity osteomyelitis (OM) with multi-reader analysis.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, three musculoskeletal fellowship-trained expert radiologists evaluated cases of suspected OM in two rounds—first using radiographs (XR), then with conventional MRI. Radiologic features consistent with OM were recorded. Each reader recorded individual findings on both modalities and rendered a binary diagnosis along with certainty of final diagnosis on a confidence scale of 1–5. This was compared with the pathology-proven diagnosis of OM to determine diagnostic performance. Intraclass correlation (ICC) and Conger’s Kappa were used for statistics.

Results

XR and MRIs of 213 pathology proven cases (51.5 years ± 14.0 years, mean ± St.Dev.) were included in this study, with 79 tested positive for OM and 98 were positive for a soft tissue abscess, with 78 patients being negative for both. In total, 139 were males and 74 females with bones of interest in the upper and lower extremities in 29 and 184 cases, respectively. MRI showed significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive value than XR (p < 0.001 for both metrics). Conger’s Kappa for OM diagnosis were 0.62 and 0.74 on XR and MRI, respectively. Reader confidence improved slightly from 4.54 to 4.57 when MRI was used.

Conclusions

MRI is a diagnostically more effective imaging modality than XR for finding extremity osteomyelitis with better inter-reader reliability.

Clinical relevance statement

This study validates the diagnosis of OM with MRI over XR but adds novelty because it is the largest study of its kind with a clear reference standard to guide clinician decision making.

Key Points

• Radiography is the first-line imaging modality for musculoskeletal pathology but MRI can add value for infections.

• MRI shows greater sensitivity for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the extremities than radiography.

• This improved diagnostic accuracy makes MRI a better imaging modality for patients with suspected osteomyelitis.

Sia IG, Berbari EF (2006) Infection and musculoskeletal conditions: osteomyelitis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 20(6):1065–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2006.08.014CrossRefPubMed

Hatzenbuehler J, Pulling TJ (2011) Diagnosis and management of osteomyelitis. Am Fam Physician 84(9):1027–1033PubMed

Kremers HM, Nwojo ME, Ransom JE, Wood-Wentz CM, Melton LJ 3rd, Huddleston PM 3rd (2015) Trends in the epidemiology of osteomyelitis: a population-based study, 1969 to 2009. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(10):837–845. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01350CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rubin RJ, Harrington CA, Poon A, Dietrich K, Greene JA, Moiduddin A (1999) The economic impact of Staphylococcus aureus infection in New York City hospitals. Emerg Infect Dis 5(1):9–17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Geraghty Terese, LaPorta Guido (2019) Current health and economic burden of chronic diabetic osteomyelitis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 19(3):279–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2019.1567337CrossRefPubMed

Pugmire BS, Shailam R, Gee MS (2014) Role of MRI in the diagnosis and treatment of osteomyelitis in pediatric patients. World J Radiol 6:530–537. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v6.i8.530CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rajashanker B, Whitehouse RW (2015) Chapter 53: Bone, joint and spinal infection. In: Adam A, Dixon AK, Gillard JH et al (eds) Grainger & Allison’s diagnostic radiology, 6th edn. Churchill Livingstone, New York, NY, pp 1241–1242

Luchs JS, Hines J, Katz DS, Athanasian EA (2002) MR imaging of squamous cell carcinoma complicating chronic osteomyelitis of the femur. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178(2):512–513. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.2.1780512CrossRefPubMed

Lee YJ, Sadigh S, Mankad K, Kapse N, Rajeswaran G (2016) The imaging of osteomyelitis. Quant Imaging Med Surg 6(2):184–198. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims.2016.04.01CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging, Beaman FD, von Herrmann PF, et al. (2017) ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® suspected osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, or soft tissue infection (excluding spine and diabetic foot). J Am Coll Radiol 14(5S):S326-S337 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.008

11.

Rubitschung K, Sherwood A, Crisologo AP et al (2021) Pathophysiology and molecular imaging of diabetic foot infections. Int J Mol Sci 22(21):11552. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222111552CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Offiah AC (2006) Acute osteomyelitis, septic arthritis and discitis: differences between neonates and older children. Eur J Radiol 60:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.07.016CrossRefPubMed

13.

Davies AM, Hughes DE, Grimer RJ (2005) Intramedullary and extramedullary fat globules on magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic sign for osteomyelitis. Eur Radiol 15:2194–2199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2771-4CrossRefPubMed

14.

Malcius D, Jonkus M, Kuprionis G et al (2009) The accuracy of different imaging techniques in diagnosis of acute hematogenous osteomyelitis. Medicina (Kaunas) 45(8):624–631

15.

Collins MS, Schaar MM, Wenger DE, Mandrekar JN (2005) T1-weighted MRI characteristics of pedal osteomyelitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185(2):386–393. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.185.2.01850386CrossRefPubMed

16.

Lin B, Guo Q, Ren H, Liu Y, Huang K (2021) MRI Manifestations and Diagnostic Value of Chronic Osteomyelitis. J Healthc Eng 5585676. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5585676

17.

Pineda C, Espinosa R, Pena A (2009) Radiographic imaging in osteomyelitis: the role of plain radiography, computed tomography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and scintigraphy. Semin Plast Surg 23(2):80–89. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1214160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME, Bock GW et al (1993) Diagnosis of osteomyelitis: utility of fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 189(1):251–257. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.189.1.8204132.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Alaia EF, Chhabra A, Simpfendorfer CS et al (2021) MRI nomenclature for musculoskeletal infection. Skeletal Radiol 50(12):2319–2347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-021-03807-7.

20.

Johnson PW, Collins MS, Wenger DE (2009) Diagnostic utility of T1-weighted MRI characteristics in evaluation of osteomyelitis of the foot. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(1):96–100. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1376.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Averill LW, Hernandez A, Gonzalez L, Peña AH, Jaramillo D (2009) Diagnosis of osteomyelitis in children: utility of fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(5):1232–1238. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3400.

22.

Kan JH, Young RS, Yu C, Hernanz-Schulman M (2010) Clinical impact of gadolinium in the MRI diagnosis of musculoskeletal infection in children. Pediatr Radiol 40(7):1197–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-010-1557-2.

23.

Labiste CC, McElroy E, Subhawong TK, Banks JS (2022) Systematic review: investigating the added diagnostic value of gadolinium contrast agents for osteomyelitis in the appendicular skeleton. Skeletal Radiol 51(6):1285–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-021-03915-4.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Chandnani VP, Beltran J, Morris CS et al (1990) Acute experimental osteomyelitis and abscesses: detection with MR imaging versus CT. Radiology 174(1):233–236. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.174.1.2294554.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Beltran J, Noto AM, McGhee RB, Freedy RM, McCalla MS (1987) Infections of the musculoskeletal system: high-field-strength MR imaging. Radiology 164(2):449–454. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.164.2.3602386.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kumar Y, Gupta N, Chhabra A, Fukuda T, Soni N, Hayashi D (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of bacterial and tuberculous spondylodiscitis with associated complications and non-infectious spinal pathology mimicking infections: a pictorial review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18(1):244. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1608-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Llewellyn A, Jones-Diette J, Kraft J, Holton C, Harden M, Simmonds M (2019) Imaging tests for the detection of osteomyelitis: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 23(61):1–128. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta23610CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Diagnostic performance comparison of conventional radiography to magnetic resonance imaging for suspected osteomyelitis of the extremities: a multi-reader study
verfasst von: Prajwal Gowda
Oganes Ashikyan
Parham Pezeshk
Mina Guirguis
Holden Archer
Diana Hoang
Yin Xi
Avneesh Chhabra
Publikationsdatum: 13.05.2023
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 11/2023
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09734-6

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Diagnostic performance comparison of conventional radiography to magnetic resonance imaging for suspected osteomyelitis of the extremities: a multi-reader study