Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Image quality of hip MR arthrography with intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid versus gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with femoroacetabular impingement
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Image quality of hip MR arthrography with intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid versus gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with femoroacetabular impingement
Do you wish to request the book?
Image quality of hip MR arthrography with intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid versus gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with femoroacetabular impingement
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Image quality of hip MR arthrography with intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid versus gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with femoroacetabular impingement
2020
Overview
ObjectiveTo compare image quality of magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) of the hip with intra-articular injection of high-viscosity hyaluronic acid (HA-MRA) versus Gd-based contrast agent (Gd-MRA) in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).Materials and methodsDesign: single-centre, observational, retrospective, inter-individual, and cross-sectional. FAI patients who underwent HA-MRA (3 mL of high-viscosity HA plus 17 mL of saline) were compared with 37 age- and sex-matched FAI patients who underwent Gd-MRA (20 mL of 2 mmol/L solution of gadopentetate dimeglumine). Two independent blinded radiologists assessed image quality for all sequences (two-dimensional proton density, non-fat-sat axial, fat-sat coronal and sagittal; three-dimensional dual-echo steady state), using a 5-point Likert scale considering separately labrum, cartilage, round ligament, transverse ligament, and capsule. Pearson χ2 and Cohen κ were used.ResultsThe HA-MRA group was composed of 37 patients (23 males, 14 females; median age 38 years), the Gd-MRA group of 37 patients (21 males, 16 females; median age 38 years), without significant difference for age (p = 0.937) and sex (p = 0.636). Image quality did not differ between the two readers for any structure: labrum (p ≥ 0.340), cartilage (p ≥ 0.198), round ligament (p ≥ 0.255), transverse ligament (p ≥ 0.806), and capsule (p ≥ 0.314). Inter-reader agreement (κ) ranged from 0.785 to 1.000.ConclusionsHA-MRA provided an image quality not significantly different from that of Gd-MRA. This may open the possibility of combining MRA and viscosupplementation in one single procedure.
