2005American Journal of RoentgenologyRequires access

Comparison of Fast Spin-Echo Versus Conventional Spin-Echo MRI for Evaluating Meniscal Tears

Garyun B. Blackmon, Nancy M. Major, Clyde A. Helms

Open publisher page 38 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We compare sensitivities of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo sequences in the evaluation of meniscal tears. Furthermore, we reevaluate the results from prior studies comparing these two sequences to understand why there are differing conclusions regarding the efficacy of fast spin-echo sequences as a commensurate replacement for conventional spin-echo sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used records from a control group of 64 patients (128 menisci) who had undergone arthroscopy to determine the sensitivity of conventional spin-echo sequences for detecting meniscal tears. Two hundred sixteen consecutive patients (432 menisci) were then imaged using conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo sequences to evaluate for meniscal tears. Both sequences were proton density-weighted with fat suppression. RESULTS: Of the 432 menisci, 170 tears were detected on conventional spin-echo imaging. Only 128 tears were detected on the fast spin-echo sequence. The sensitivities of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo imaging were found to be 93% and 80%, respectively. In addition, findings from conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo sequences were discordant for 72 menisci (17%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The sensitivities of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo imaging for detecting meniscal tears have been shown to be greater than 90% and approximately 80%, respectively. However, some authors advocate substituting conventional spin-echo imaging with fast spin-echo imaging. We urge the abandonment of fast spin-echo imaging for evaluating meniscal tears because a loss of greater than 10% in sensitivity is unacceptable.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: We compare sensitivities of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo sequences in the evaluation of meniscal tears. Furthermore, we reevaluate the results from prior studies comparing these two sequences to understand why there are differing conclusions regarding the efficacy of fast spin-echo sequences as a commensurate replacement for conventional spin-echo sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used records from a control group of 64 patients (128 menisci) who had undergone arthroscopy to determine the sensitivity of conventional spin-echo sequences for detecting meniscal tears. Two hundred sixteen consecutive patients (432 menisci) were then imaged using conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo sequences to evaluate for meniscal tears. Both sequences were proton density-weighted with fat suppression. RESULTS: Of the 432 menisci, 170 tears were detected on conventional spin-echo imaging. Only 128 tears were detected on the fast spin-echo sequence. The sensitivities of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo imaging were found to be 93% and 80%, respectively. In addition, findings from conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo sequences were discordant for 72 menisci (17%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The sensitivities of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo imaging for detecting meniscal tears have been shown to be greater than 90% and approximately 80%, respectively. However, some authors advocate substituting conventional spin-echo imaging with fast spin-echo imaging. We urge the abandonment of fast spin-echo imaging for evaluating meniscal tears because a loss of greater than 10% in sensitivity is unacceptable.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 38 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: We compare sensitivities of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo sequences in the evaluation of meniscal tears. Furthermore, we reevaluate the results from prior studies comparing these two sequences to understand why there are differing conclusions regarding the efficacy of fast spin-echo sequences as a commensurate replacement for conventional spin-echo sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used records from a control group of 64 patients (128 menisci) who had undergone arthroscopy to determine the sensitivity of conventional spin-echo sequences for detecting meniscal tears. Two hundred sixteen consecutive patients (432 menisci) were then imaged using conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo sequences to evaluate for meniscal tears. Both sequences were proton density-weighted with fat suppression. RESULTS: Of the 432 menisci, 170 tears were detected on conventional spin-echo imaging. Only 128 tears were detected on the fast spin-echo sequence. The sensitivities of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo imaging were found to be 93% and 80%, respectively. In addition, findings from conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo sequences were discordant for 72 menisci (17%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The sensitivities of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo imaging for detecting meniscal tears have been shown to be greater than 90% and approximately 80%, respectively. However, some authors advocate substituting conventional spin-echo imaging with fast spin-echo imaging. We urge the abandonment of fast spin-echo imaging for evaluating meniscal tears because a loss of greater than 10% in sensitivity is unacceptable.

Key concepts: Medicine, Echo (communications protocol), Fast spin echo, Spin echo, Tears, Magnetic resonance imaging, Nuclear magnetic resonance, Spin (aerodynamics)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of Fast Spin-Echo Versus Conventional Spin-Echo MRI for Evaluating Meniscal Tears — Research Paper | ScholarLens