The lateral ulnar collateral ligament: Anatomical and structural study for clinical application in the diagnosis and treatment of elbow lateral ligament injuries.

The lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) is considered one of the main stabilizers of the elbow. However, its anatomical description is not well established. Imaging techniques do not always have agreed upon parameters for the study of this ligament. Therefore, herein, we studied the macro and microanatomy of the LUCL to establish its morphological and morphometric characteristics more precisely. Fifty-five fresh-frozen human elbows underwent dissection of the lateral collateral ligament. Morphological characteristics were studied in detail. Ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) were done before dissection. Two specimens were selected for PGP 9.5 S immunohistochemistry. Ten additional elbows were analyzed by E12 sheet plastination. LUCL was identified in all specimens and clearly defined by E12 semi-thin sections. It fused with the common extensor tendon and the radial ligament. The total length of the LUCL was 48.50 mm at 90°, 46.76 mm at maximum flexion and 44.10 mm at complete extension. Three morphological insertion variants were identified. Both US and MR identified the LUCL in all cases. It was hypoechoic in the middle and distal third in 85%. The LUCL was hypointense on MR in 95%. Free nerve endings were present on histology. The LUCL is closely related to the anular ligament. It is stretched during flexion and supination. US and MR can reliably identify its fibers. Anatomical data are relevant to the surgeon who repairs the ligaments of the elbow. Also, to the radiologist and pain physician who interpret imaging and treat patients with pain syndromes of the elbow.

Homogeneous application of imaging criteria in a multicenter trial supported by investigator training: A report from the WAKE-UP study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: WAKE-UP is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of thrombolysis in stroke with unknown time of symptom onset using magnetic resonance imaging criteria to determine patients' eligibility. As it is a multicenter trial, homogeneous interpretation of criteria is an important contributor to the trial's success. We describe the investigator image training as well as results of the quality control done by the central image reading board (CIRB). METHODS: Investigators at local centers were given an imaging manual and passed a software-based image training prior to being allowed to judge images in the trial. Throughout the trial, the CIRB gave feedback to recruiting centers in cases of disagreement regarding a patient's randomization. We evaluated the investigators performance in the image training and analyzed results of this quality control from the first 1069 screened patients. Additionally, we obtained feedback from investigators regarding their experiences with the trial. RESULTS: Four-hundred-and-sixty physicians from eight European countries took part in the image training, of whom 436 (95%) successfully completed it. In the trial, agreement rates between the local investigators and members of the CIRB were high for the presence of an acute ischemic lesion (94%, κ = 0.87) as well as for the judgment of infarct extent (93%, κ = 0.87). Agreement for the criterion of DWI-FLAIR mismatch was 74%, κ = 0.60. The majority of investigators reported that the DWI-FLAIR mismatch was the hardest imaging criterion to evaluate. Ninety-one percent of investigators who responded to our survey stated that the image training specifically increased their confidence when assessing the DWI-FLAIR mismatch. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its multicenter design, the WAKE-UP study has demonstrated a high level of homogeneity amongst raters in interpreting the various imaging criteria for patient randomization, including the novel criterion of DWI-FLAIR mismatch. Systematic image training increased the confidence of investigators in applying imaging criteria.

MRI-Guided Thrombolysis for Stroke with Unknown Time of Onset.

BACKGROUND: Under current guidelines, intravenous thrombolysis is used to treat acute stroke only if it can be ascertained that the time since the onset of symptoms was less than 4.5 hours. We sought to determine whether patients with stroke with an unknown time of onset and features suggesting recent cerebral infarction on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) would benefit from thrombolysis with the use of intravenous alteplase. METHODS: In a multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients who had an unknown time of onset of stroke to receive either intravenous alteplase or placebo. All the patients had an ischemic lesion that was visible on MRI diffusion-weighted imaging but no parenchymal hyperintensity on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), which indicated that the stroke had occurred approximately within the previous 4.5 hours. We excluded patients for whom thrombectomy was planned. The primary end point was favorable outcome, as defined by a score of 0 or 1 on the modified Rankin scale of neurologic disability (which ranges from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. A secondary outcome was the likelihood that alteplase would lead to lower ordinal scores on the modified Rankin scale than would placebo (shift analysis). RESULTS: The trial was stopped early owing to cessation of funding after the enrollment of 503 of an anticipated 800 patients. Of these patients, 254 were randomly assigned to receive alteplase and 249 to receive placebo. A favorable outcome at 90 days was reported in 131 of 246 patients (53.3%) in the alteplase group and in 102 of 244 patients (41.8%) in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 2.36; P=0.02). The median score on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days was 1 in the alteplase group and 2 in the placebo group (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.23; P=0.003). There were 10 deaths (4.1%) in the alteplase group and 3 (1.2%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 0.92 to 12.52; P=0.07). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was 2.0% in the alteplase group and 0.4% in the placebo group (odds ratio, 4.95; 95% CI, 0.57 to 42.87; P=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute stroke with an unknown time of onset, intravenous alteplase guided by a mismatch between diffusion-weighted imaging and FLAIR in the region of ischemia resulted in a significantly better functional outcome and numerically more intracranial hemorrhages than placebo at 90 days. (Funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program; WAKE-UP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01525290; and EudraCT number, 2011-005906-32 .).

Visual and region of interest-based inter-rater agreement in the assessment of the diffusion-weighted imaging- fluid-attenuated inversion recovery mismatch.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: WAKE-UP is a randomized, placebo-controlled MRI-based trial of thrombolysis in wake-up stroke using the mismatch between a lesion's visibility in diffusion-weighted imaging and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences as its main imaging inclusion criterion. Visual judgment of lesion conspicuity on FLAIR is however methodically limited by moderate inter-rater agreement. We therefore sought to improve rating homogeneity by incorporating quantitative signal intensity measurements. METHODS: One hundred forty-three data sets of patients with acute ischemic stroke were visually rated by 8 raters with respect to WAKE-UP study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and inter-rater agreement was calculated. A subanalysis was performed on 45 cases to determine a threshold value of relative signal intensity (rSI) between the ischemic lesion and contralateral healthy tissue which best corresponded to a visually established verdict of FLAIR positivity. The usefulness of this threshold in improving inter-rater agreement was evaluated in an additional sample of 50 patients. RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement for inclusion into the WAKE-UP trial was 73% with a free-marginal κ of 0.46. A threshold of rSI which best correlated with the visual rating of lesions as FLAIR positive was 1.20. The addition of rSI measurements to visual evaluation did not change the inter-rater agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a semiquantitative measure for FLAIR rSI did not improve the agreement between individual raters. However, enhancing visual assessment with rSI measurements can provide reassurance to local investigators in cases of uncertainty.