Meier, Malin KristinMalin KristinMeierWagner, MoritzMoritzWagnerBrunner, AlexanderAlexanderBrunnerLerch, TillTillLerch0000-0002-0475-0269Steppacher, Simon DamianSimon DamianSteppacherVavron, PeterPeterVavronSchmaranzer, EhrenfriedEhrenfriedSchmaranzerSchmaranzer, FlorianFlorianSchmaranzer2024-10-252024-10-252023-09https://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/166427OBJECTIVE To compare image quality and diagnostic performance of preoperative direct hip magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) performed with gadolinium contrast agent and saline solution. METHODS IRB-approved retrospective study of 140 age and sex-matched symptomatic patients with femoroacetabular impingement, who either underwent intra-articular injection of 15-20 mL gadopentetate dimeglumine (GBCA), 2.0 mmol/L ("GBCA-MRA" group, n = 70), or 0.9% saline solution ("Saline-MRA" group, n = 70) for preoperative hip MRA and subsequent hip arthroscopy. 1.5 T hip MRA was performed including leg traction. Two readers assessed image quality using a 5-point Likert scale (1-5, excellent-poor), labrum and femoroacetabular cartilage lesions. Arthroscopic diagnosis was used to calculate diagnostic accuracy which was compared between groups with Fisher's exact tests. Image quality was compared with the Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS Mean age was 33 years ± 9, 21% female patients. Image quality was excellent (GBCA-MRA mean range, 1.1-1.3 vs 1.1-1.2 points for Saline-MRA) and not different between groups (all p > 0.05) except for image contrast which was lower for Saline-MRA group (GBCA-MRA 1.1 ± 0.4 vs Saline-MRA 1.8 ± 0.5; p < 0.001). Accuracy was high for both groups for reader 1/reader 2 for labrum (GBCA-MRA 94%/ 96% versus Saline-MRA 96%/93%; p > 0.999/p = 0.904) and acetabular (GBCA-MRA 86%/ 83% versus Saline-MRA 89%/87%; p = 0.902/p = 0.901) and femoral cartilage lesions (GBCA-MRA 97%/ 99% versus Saline-MRA 97%/97%; both p > 0.999). CONCLUSION Diagnostic accuracy and image quality of Saline-MRA and GBCA-MRA is high in assessing chondrolabral lesions underlining the potential role of non-gadolinium-based hip MRA. KEY POINTS • Image quality of Saline-MRA and GBCA-MRA was excellent for labrum, acetabular and femoral cartilage, ligamentum teres, and the capsule (all p > 0.18). • The overall image contrast was lower for Saline-MRA (Saline-MRA 1.8 ± 0.5 vs. GBCA-MRA 1.1 ± 0.4; p < 0.001). • Diagnostic accuracy was high for Saline-MRA and GBCA-MRA for labrum (96% vs. 94%; p > 0.999), acetabular cartilage damage (89% vs. 86%; p = 0.902), femoral cartilage damage (97% vs. 97%; p > 0.999), and extensive cartilage damage (97% vs. 93%; p = 0.904).enArthrography Arthroscopy Contrast agent Hip MRI600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & healtharticle10.48350/1816853704298110.1007/s00330-023-09586-0