Comparative study of the detection of joint injury in early‐stage rheumatoid arthritis by magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist and finger joints and physical examination

• Published in: Arthritis care & research (2010) 2011-03, Vol.63 (3), p.436-439
• Main Authors: Tamai, Mami, Kawakami, Atsushi, Iwamoto, Naoki, Kawashiri, Shin‐Ya, Fujikawa, Keita, Aramaki, Toshiyuki, Kita, Junko, Okada, Akitomo, Koga, Tomohiro, Arima, Kazuhiko, Kamachi, Makoto, Yamasaki, Satoshi, Nakamura, Hideki, Ida, Hiroaki, Origuchi, Tomoki, Takao, Shoichiro, Aoyagi, Kiyoshi, Uetani, Masataka, Eguchi, Katsumi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Arthralgia - diagnosis; Arthralgia - etiology; Arthritis, Rheumatoid - complications; Arthritis, Rheumatoid - diagnosis; Arthritis, Rheumatoid - pathology; Chi-Square Distribution; Contrast Media; Early Diagnosis; Edema - diagnosis; Edema - etiology; Female; Finger Joint - pathology; Gadolinium DTPA; Humans; Japan; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Physical Examination; Predictive Value of Tests; Sensitivity and Specificity; Severity of Illness Index; Synovitis - diagnosis; Synovitis - etiology; Wrist Joint - pathology; Young Adult
• ISSN: 2151-464X; 2151-4658
• DOI: 10.1002/acr.20395

Objective To verify whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–proven joint injury is sensitive as compared with joint injury determined by physical examination. Methods MRI of the wrist and finger joints of both hands was examined in 51 early‐stage rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients by both plain and gadolinium diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid–enhanced MRI. Synovitis, bone edema, and bone erosion (the latter two included as bone lesions at the wrist joints); metacarpophalangeal joints; and proximal interphalangeal joints were considered as MRI‐proven joint injury. Japan College of Rheumatology–certified rheumatologists had given a physical examination just before the MRI study. The presence of tender and/or swollen joints in the same fields as MRI was considered as joint injury on physical examination. The association of MRI‐proven joint injury with physical examination–proven joint injury was examined. Results A total of 1,110 sites were available to be examined. MRI‐proven joint injury was found in 521 sites, whereas the other 589 sites were normal. Physical examination–proven joint injury was found in 305 sites, which was significantly low as compared with MRI‐proven joint injury (P = 1.1 × 10−12 versus MRI). Joint injury on physical examination was not found in 81.5% of the sites where MRI findings were normal. Furthermore, an association of the severity of MRI‐proven joint injury with that of joint injury on physical examination was clearly demonstrated (P = 1.6 × 10−15, rs = 0.469). Conclusion Our present data suggest that MRI is not only sensitive but accurately reflects the joint injury in patients with early‐stage RA.