A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of postoperative magnetic resonance imaging and second-look arthroscopy for evaluating meniscal allograft transplantation. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation of transplanted meniscal allograft with second-look arthroscopy and evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRI for assessing graft status.

Methods: From 1996 to 2012, among 290 knees that underwent meniscal allograft transplantation and received follow-up examination for more than 1 year, those knees that underwent second-look arthroscopy were reviewed. Patients with no postoperative MRI and patients with a time gap between postoperative MRI and second-look arthroscopy of more than 3 months were excluded. Anatomically, the meniscus was divided into 3 segments: anterior one-third, mid body, and posterior one-third. Each part of the meniscus was evaluated using both methods. Grade 3 MRI signal intensity was diagnosed as a meniscal tear radiologically. By use of second-look arthroscopy as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of postoperative MRI were assessed in each segment of the grafts.

Results: Twenty knees were retrospectively enrolled. The specificity, PPV, and accuracy for the anterior one-third were lower than those for the mid body and posterior one-third (specificity of 35.3% v 91.7% and 90%, respectively; PPV of 21.4% v 87.5% and 90.9%, respectively; and accuracy of 45% v 90% and 95%, respectively). However, the sensitivity and NPV were similar among the anterior one-third, mid body, and posterior one-third (sensitivity of 100%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively; and NPV of 100%, 91.7%, and 100%, respectively). There were no significant differences in the comparison between the diagnostic MRI values of lateral grafts and medial grafts. Of 5 cases that showed grade 3 signal at only the anterior one-third section, 60% had no clinical signs. There were no graft tears in any cases.

Conclusions: The anterior one-third of grafts showed low specificity, PPV, and accuracy of postoperative MRI compared with the mid body and posterior one-third. MRI tended to grade the anterior one-third more poorly than second-look arthroscopy. These features should be considered when evaluating transplanted meniscal allografts on postoperative MRI.

Level Of Evidence: Level III, study of non-consecutive patients evaluating a diagnostic test with a gold standard.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.041DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

second-look arthroscopy
24
anterior one-third
24
postoperative mri
16
mid body
16
body posterior
16
posterior one-third
16
meniscal allograft
12
one-third
10
mri
9
magnetic resonance
8

Similar Publications