Purpose: This study assesses the accuracy of 3-Tesla (3-T) conventional MR imaging, 3-T MR arthrography, and the combined use of conventional MR and MR arthrography in the diagnosis of meniscal retears as compared with arthroscopy. The study also assess whether there are false-negative cases in which injected contrast does not extend into the meniscus despite a meniscal retear being seen on arthroscopy.
Materials and methods: One hundred consecutive knee MR arthrograms performed on patients with previous knee surgery were reviewed retrospectively. 3-T conventional MR imaging, 3-T MR arthrography, and the combined use of conventional MR and MR arthrography were assessed for meniscal retears as compared with arthroscopy. The criterion used to diagnose a meniscal retear on MR arthrogram was injected contrast tracking into the meniscus. All patients underwent second-look arthroscopy.
Results: Seventy-four patients had conventional MR findings consistent with a meniscal retear. In 83 of the 100 patients, intraarticular contrast helped in demonstrating a retear. In ten patients, there were MR findings consistent with a meniscal retear despite intra-articular contrast not tracking into the meniscus. Ninety-four of the 100 patients had meniscal retears on second-look arthroscopy. Three-Tesla conventional MR examination was 78 % sensitive and 75 % specific, MR arthrogram examination was 88 % sensitive and 100 % specific, and the combined use of MR and MR arthrogram imaging was 98 % sensitive and 75 % specific in the diagnosis of a meniscal retear.
Conclusions: The combined use of 3-T MR and MR arthrography allows for high sensitivity and specificity in meniscal retear detection. In some patients, intraarticular contrast will not track into a meniscal retear. When MR findings are consistent with a meniscal retear but contrast does not extend into the meniscus, a meniscal retear is likely.