Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025
How may complementary magnetic resonance imaging findings facilitate the diagnosis of inflammatory hand arthritis involving the distal interphalangeal joint? A prospective cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yaraşır Yasin, Ayan Gizem, Avcı Hanife, Kılıç Levent, Aydıngöz Üstün, Kalyoncu Umut, Yıldız Adalet Elçin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to characterize the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in making a specific diagnosis of inflammatory hand arthritis (IHA), particularly in early stages or ambiguous cases.
METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with suspicious IHA in at least one joint were enrolled in this single-center prospective study. Three Tesla MRI (3T-MRI) with a fine-tuned protocol was utilized, whereby differential diagnoses were made by radiologists according to the predominant involvement of synovium or synovioentheseal complex (SEC) and/or specific degenerative findings. Physical examination, laboratory findings, treatment response, and already-established classification criteria were used to reach the final diagnostic groups: psoriatic arthritis (PsA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), erosive osteoarthritis or calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition disease (EOA/CPPD), and arthritis with distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) involvement (ADIPI) not otherwise classified into any group. Statistical analyses mainly included pairwise comparisons of MRI findings across diagnostic groups.
RESULTS: Of 80 patients enrolled, 57 [42 women; mean age, 54 years (range, 28-79 years)] constituted the final group with eventual clinical diagnoses of 11 PsA, 14 RA, 11 EOA/CPPD, and 21 ADIPI. MRI revealed no difference between the PsA and ADIPI groups, except for nailbed enthesitis (P = 0.048, effect size: 0.416). A comparison between PsA and RA revealed that enthesitis, excluding pulley enthesitis, was more frequently observed in PsA (P = 0.033, effect size: 0.497). Periarticular soft tissue edema was also more common in PsA than RA (P = 0.042, effect size: 0.461). When the ADIPI and PsA groups were combined, enthesitis and periarticular soft tissue edema were more common than in other groups (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: SEC inflammation and periarticular edema on MRI strongly predict PsA, especially in patients with DIPJ arthritis who do not meet rheumatological classification criteria.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: 3T-MRI with a fine-tuned protocol enables a more accurate differential diagnosis of hand inflammatory arthritis, potentially guiding earlier and more targeted interventions.
METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with suspicious IHA in at least one joint were enrolled in this single-center prospective study. Three Tesla MRI (3T-MRI) with a fine-tuned protocol was utilized, whereby differential diagnoses were made by radiologists according to the predominant involvement of synovium or synovioentheseal complex (SEC) and/or specific degenerative findings. Physical examination, laboratory findings, treatment response, and already-established classification criteria were used to reach the final diagnostic groups: psoriatic arthritis (PsA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), erosive osteoarthritis or calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition disease (EOA/CPPD), and arthritis with distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) involvement (ADIPI) not otherwise classified into any group. Statistical analyses mainly included pairwise comparisons of MRI findings across diagnostic groups.
RESULTS: Of 80 patients enrolled, 57 [42 women; mean age, 54 years (range, 28-79 years)] constituted the final group with eventual clinical diagnoses of 11 PsA, 14 RA, 11 EOA/CPPD, and 21 ADIPI. MRI revealed no difference between the PsA and ADIPI groups, except for nailbed enthesitis (P = 0.048, effect size: 0.416). A comparison between PsA and RA revealed that enthesitis, excluding pulley enthesitis, was more frequently observed in PsA (P = 0.033, effect size: 0.497). Periarticular soft tissue edema was also more common in PsA than RA (P = 0.042, effect size: 0.461). When the ADIPI and PsA groups were combined, enthesitis and periarticular soft tissue edema were more common than in other groups (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: SEC inflammation and periarticular edema on MRI strongly predict PsA, especially in patients with DIPJ arthritis who do not meet rheumatological classification criteria.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: 3T-MRI with a fine-tuned protocol enables a more accurate differential diagnosis of hand inflammatory arthritis, potentially guiding earlier and more targeted interventions.