Rheumatoid Arthritis: Loreck D

Hermann KG, Backhaus M, Schneider U, Labs K, Loreck D, Zühlsdorf S, Schink T, Fischer T, Hamm B, Bollow M. · Department of Radiology, Charité, Berlin, Germany. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #14673985 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with conventional radiography in the detection of chronic and acute inflammatory manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) of the shoulder joint. METHODS: Forty-three consecutive patients with known RA prospectively underwent clinical examination, radiography, ultrasound, and MRI of the shoulder joints. Each patient was assigned a clinical/laboratory score consisting of 7 parameters, including measurements of shoulder mobility, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein level. Conventional radiography was standardized and performed in 2 planes. Ultrasound was performed in 10 predefined planes using a 7.5-MHz linear transducer. MRI at 1.5T comprised transverse and oblique coronal T1- and T2*-weighted fast spin-echo, gradient-echo (GRE), and inversion-recovery sequences with a matrix size of up to 512 pixels. A dynamic T1-weighted GRE sequence was acquired with intravenous administration of contrast medium. Erosions were assessed using all 3 imaging techniques on a 4-point scale. Soft-tissue involvement was evaluated according to the presence of synovitis, tenosynovitis, and bursitis on ultrasound and MRI. The results in the study group were compared with those obtained in a control group of 10 patients with shoulder pain. RESULTS: In the study group, erosions of the humeroscapular joint were detected by conventional radiography in 26 patients, by ultrasound in 30 patients, and by MRI in 39 patients; the differences were statistically significant for the comparisons of conventional radiography with MRI and for ultrasound versus MRI (P < 0.0001). Conventional radiography detected 12 erosions of the scapula and MRI detected 15. Synovitis was demonstrated in 12 patients by ultrasound and in 27 patients by MRI (P = 0.0003). Tenosynovitis was observed in 15 patients by ultrasound and in 28 patients by MRI (P = 0.0064). Bursitis was detected in 13 patients by ultrasound and in 18 patients by MRI. The findings on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI correlated significantly with the detection of synovitis by ultrasound and erosions by static MRI (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound and MRI supplement conventional radiography in assessing the shoulder joint. Although conventional radiography can be used as the sole method of following up known joint destruction in RA, ultrasound and, preferably, MRI are recommended as additional techniques in the initial diagnostic evaluation when radiography yields negative results.

Backhaus M, Burmester GR, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Hess D, Scholz A, Blind S, Hamm B, Bollow M. · Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité University Hospital, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #12228160 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To carry out a prospective two year follow up study comparing conventional radiography, three-phase bone scintigraphy, ultrasonography (US), and three dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with precontrast and dynamic postcontrast examination in detecting early arthritis. The aim of the follow up study was to monitor the course of erosions during treatment with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs by different modalities and to determine whether the radiographically occult changes like erosive bone lesions of the finger joints detected by MRI and US in the initial study would show up on conventional radiographs two years later. Additionally, to study the course of soft tissue lesions depicted in the initial study in comparison with the clinical findings. METHODS: The metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, and distal interphalangeal joints (14 joints) of the clinically more severely affected hand (soft tissue swelling and joint tenderness) as determined in the initial study of 49 patients with various forms of arthritis were examined twice. The patients had initially been divided into two groups. The follow up group I included 28 subjects (392 joints) without radiographic signs of destructive arthritis (Larsen grades 0-1) of the investigated hand and wrist, and group II (control group) included 21 patients (294 joints) with radiographs showing erosions (Larsen grade 2) of the investigated hand or wrist, or both, at the initial examination. RESULTS: (1) Radiography at the two year follow up detected only two erosions (two patients) in group I and 10 (nine patients) additional erosions in group II. Initial MRI had already detected both erosions in group I and seven (seven patients) of the 10 erosions in group II. Initial US had depicted one erosion in group I and four of the 10 erosions in group II. (2) In contrast with conventional radiography, 3D MRI and US demonstrated an increase in erosions in comparison with the initial investigation. (3) The abnormal findings detected by scintigraphy were decreased at the two year follow up. (4) Both groups showed a marked clinical improvement of synovitis and tenosynovitis, as also shown by MRI and US. (5) There was a striking discrepancy between the decrease in the soft tissue lesions as demonstrated by clinical findings, MRI, and US, and the significant increase in erosive bone lesions, which were primarily evident at MRI and US. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clinical improvement and a regression of inflammatory soft tissue lesions, erosive bone lesions were increased at the two year follow up, which were more pronounced with 3D MRI and less pronounced with US. The results of our study suggest that owing to the inadequate depiction of erosions and soft tissue lesions, conventional radiography alone has limitations in the intermediate term follow up of treatment. US has a high sensitivity for depicting inflammatory soft tissue lesions, but dynamic 3D MRI is more sensitive in differentiating minute erosions.

Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Fritz J, Wolf KJ, Raber H, Hamm B, Burmester GR, Bollow M. · Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité University Hospital, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #10366117 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: A prospective study was performed comparing conventional radiography, 3-phase bone scintigraphy, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with precontrast and dynamic postcontrast examinations in 60 patients with various forms of arthritis including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyl-arthropathy, and arthritis associated with connective tissue disease. METHODS: A total of 840 finger joints were examined clinically and by all 4 imaging methods. Experienced investigators blinded to the clinical findings and diagnoses analyzed all methods independently of each other. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 included 32 patients (448 finger joints) without radiologic signs of destructive arthritis (Larsen grades 0-1) of the evaluated hand and wrist and group 2 included 28 patients (392 finger joints) with radiographs revealing erosions (Larsen grade 2) of the evaluated hand and/or wrist. RESULTS: Clinical evaluation, scintigraphy, MRI, and ultrasound were each more sensitive than conventional radiography in detecting inflammatory soft tissue lesions as well as destructive joint processes in arthritis patients in group 1. All differences were statistically significant. We found ultrasound to be even more sensitive than MRI in the detection of synovitis. MRI detected erosions in 92 finger joints (20%; 26 patients) in group 1 that had not been detected by conventional radiography. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that MRI and ultrasound are valuable diagnostic methods in patients with arthritis who have normal findings on radiologic evaluation.