Does low-field dedicated extremity MRI (E-MRI) reliably detect bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis? A comparison of two different E-MRI units and conventional radiography with high-resolution CT scanning.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of two different E-MRI units and conventional radiography (CR) to identify bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and wrist joints with CT scanning as the standard reference method. METHODS: 20 patients with RA and 5 controls underwent CR, CT and two E-MRI examinations (Esaote Biomedica Artoscan and MagneVu MV1000) of one hand during a 2-week period. In all modalities, each bone of the wrist and MCP joints was blindly evaluated for erosions. MagneVu images were also assessed for the proportion of each bone being visualised. RESULTS: 550 bones were examined. CT, Artoscan, MagneVu and CR detected 188, 116, 55 and 45 bones with erosions, respectively. The majority were located in the carpal bones. The sensitivity of the Artoscan for detecting erosions was higher than that of the MagneVu and CR (MCP joints: 0.68, 0.54 and 0.57, respectively; wrists: 0.50, 0.23 and 0.29). Corresponding specificities for detecting erosions were 0.94, 0.93 and 0.99, respectively, in the MCP joints and 0.92, 0.98 and 0.98 in the wrist. The MagneVu allowed visualisation of 1.5 cm of the ventral-dorsal diameter of the bone. In the wrist, 31.6% of bones were visualised entirely and 37.9% of bones were 67-99% visualised. In MCP joints, 84.2% of bones were visualised entirely and 15.8% of bones were 67-99% visualised. CONCLUSION: With CT as the reference method for detecting erosions in RA hands, the Artoscan showed higher sensitivity than the MagneVu and CR. All imaging modalities had high specificities. The better performance of the Artoscan should be considered when selecting an imaging method in RA.

Settings and artefacts relevant for Doppler ultrasound in large vessel vasculitis.

Ultrasound is used increasingly for diagnosing large vessel vasculitis (LVV). The application of Doppler in LVV is very different from in arthritic conditions. This paper aims to explain the most important Doppler parameters, including spectral Doppler, and how the settings differ from those used in arthritic conditions and provide recommendations for optimal adjustments. This is addressed through relevant Doppler physics, focusing, for example, on the Doppler shift equation and how angle correction ensures correctly displayed blood velocity. Recommendations for optimal settings are given, focusing especially on pulse repetition frequency (PRF), gain and Doppler frequency and how they impact on detection of flow. Doppler artefacts are inherent and may be affected by the adjustment of settings. The most important artefacts to be aware of, and to be able to eliminate or minimize, are random noise and blooming, aliasing and motion artefacts. Random noise and blooming artefacts can be eliminated by lowering the Doppler gain. Aliasing and motion artefacts occur when the PRF is set too low, and correct adjustment of the PRF is crucial. Some artefacts, like mirror and reverberation artefacts, cannot be eliminated and should therefore be recognised when they occur. The commonly encountered artefacts, their importance for image interpretation and how to adjust Doppler setting in order to eliminate or minimize them are explained thoroughly with imaging examples in this review.