Anatomical Variants of the Sacroiliac Joint.

Anatomical variants are frequently encountered when assessing the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) using magnetic resonance imaging. When not located in the weight-bearing part of the SIJ, variants associated with structural and edematous changes can be misinterpreted as sacroiliitis. Their correct identification is necessary to avoid radiologic pitfalls. This article reviews five SIJ variants involved in the dorsal ligamentous space (accessory SIJ, iliosacral complex, semicircular defect, bipartite iliac bony plate, and crescent iliac bony plate) and three SIJ variants involved in the cartilaginous part of the SIJ (posterior dysmorphic SIJ, isolated synostosis, and unfused ossification centers).

Myosteatosis and bone marrow adiposity are not associated among postmenopausal women with fragility fractures.

Objectives: Although paravertebral intramuscular fatty infiltration (known as myosteatosis) following a vertebral fracture is well-known, scarce data are available regarding interactions between muscle, bone, and other fat depots. Based on a homogeneous cohort comprising postmenopausal women with or without a history of fragility fracture, we aimed to better depict the interrelationship between myosteatosis and bone marrow adiposity (BMA). Methods: 102 postmenopausal women were included, 56 of whom had a fragility fracture. Mean proton density fat fraction (PDFF) was measured in the psoas (PDFFPsoas) and paravertebral (PDFFParavertebral) muscles at the lumbar level, as well as in the lumbar spine and non-dominant hip using chemical shift encoding-based water-fat imaging. Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and total body fat (TBF) were assessed using dual X-ray absorptiometry. Statistical models were adjusted for age, weight, height (all comparisons), and bone mineral density (when considering BMA). Results: PDFF in the psoas and paravertebral muscles was higher in the fracture group compared to controls even after adjustment for age, weight, and height (PDFFPsoas = 17.1 ± 6.1% versus 13.5 ± 4.9%, p=0.004; PDFFParavertebral = 34.4 ± 13.6% versus 24.9 ± 8.8%, p=0.002). Higher PDFFParavertebral was associated with lower PDFF at the lumbar spine (ß = -6.80 ± 2.85, p=0.022) among controls but not in the fracture group. In both groups, a significant relationship between higher PDFFPsoas and higher VAT was observed (ß = 20.27 ± 9.62, p=0.040 in the fracture group, and ß = 37.49 ± 8.65, p<0.001 in the control group). Although solely observed among controls, a similar relationship was observed between PDFFParavertebral and TBF (ß = 6.57 ± 1.80, p<0.001). No significant association was observed between BMA and other fat depots. Conclusion: Myosteatosis is not associated with BMA among postmenopausal women with fragility fractures. Whereas myosteatosis was associated with other fat depots, BMA appears uniquely regulated.

Up-to-Date Diagnostic CT Standards for Acute Appendicitis: Wall Thickness and Intraluminal Fluid Thickness.

Acute appendicitis is a prevalent condition that requires accurate and timely diagnosis and management to avoid potential complications. Classically, the diagnosis of appendicitis is made using the appendicular outer-to-outer wall diameter. In this study, we examined the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) scans for diagnosing acute appendicitis using wall thickness and lumen thickness rather than diameter. This study included data from 350 patients who presented to the emergency department with clinically suspected acute appendicitis. All patients underwent a CT scan, and 62 radiologically positive patients underwent surgery. A radiological diagnosis was made using the conventional outer-to-outer wall diameter with a cut-off of 6 mm for a positive diagnosis. These 62 positive CT scans were reviewed and compared with surgical results. The study showed that a threshold of 2.25 mm for appendicular lumen thickness is an excellent diagnostic tool for acute appendicitis, demonstrating a high sensitivity of 96.4% and a lower specificity of 67%. In contrast, 1.6 mm wall thickness indicates acute appendicitis, with 81.8% sensitivity and 84% specificity. However, the wall thickness remains inferior to the conventionally used measurement of 6.75 mm for appendicular diameter, with a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 100%.

Bone Marrow Adiposity and Fragility Fractures in Postmenopausal Women: The ADIMOS Case-Control Study.

CONTEXT: Noninvasive assessment of proton density fat fraction (PDFF) by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may improve the prediction of fractures. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to determine if an association exists between PDFF and fractures. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted at Lille University Hospital, Lille, France, with 2 groups of postmenopausal women: one with recent osteoporotic fractures, and the other with no fractures. Lumbar spine and proximal femur (femoral head, neck, and diaphysis) PDFF were determined using chemical shift-based water-fat separation MRI (WFI) and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans of the lumbar spine and hip. Our primary objective was to determine the relationship between lumbar spine PDFF and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Analysis of covariance was used to compare PDFF measurements between patient cases (overall and according to the type of fracture) and controls, after adjusting for age, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and BMD. RESULTS: In 199 participants, controls (n = 99) were significantly younger (P < .001) and had significantly higher BMD (P < 0.001 for all sites) than patient cases (n = 100). A total of 52 women with clinical vertebral fractures and 48 with nonvertebral fractures were included. When PDFFs in patient cases and controls were compared, after adjustment on age, CCI, and BMD, no statistically significant differences between the groups were found at the lumbar spine or proximal femur. When PDFFs in participants with clinical vertebral fractures (n = 52) and controls were compared, femoral neck PDFF and femoral diaphysis PDFF were detected to be lower in participants with clinical vertebral fractures than in controls (adjusted mean [SE] 79.3% [1.2] vs 83.0% [0.8]; P = 0.020, and 77.7% [1.4] vs 81.6% [0.9]; P = 0.029, respectively). CONCLUSION: No difference in lumbar spine PDFF was found between those with osteoporotic fractures and controls. However, imaging-based proximal femur PDFF may discriminate between postmenopausal women with and without clinical vertebral fractures, independently of age, CCI, and BMD.