Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Ultrasound Int Open 2018; 04(02): E61-E68
DOI: 10.1055/a-0612-7852
Original Article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

The Value of an Automated Ultrasound System in the Detection of Synovitis

Ruediger Mueller
1   Division of Rheumatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
2   Munich University Hospital, Division of Rheumatology, Munich, Germany
,
Mathias Grunke
2   Munich University Hospital, Division of Rheumatology, Munich, Germany
,
Jörg Wendler
3   Schwerpunktpraxis Rheumatologie, Rheumatologie, Erlangen, Germany
,
Florian Schuch
4   Schwerpunktpraxis Rheumatologie, Schwerpunktpraxis Rheumatologie, Erlangen, Germany
,
Karina Hofmann-Preiss
5   Institut für bildgebende Diagnostik und Therapie, BDT - MVZ Träger GmbH, Erlangen, Germany
,
Ina Boettger
5   Institut für bildgebende Diagnostik und Therapie, BDT - MVZ Träger GmbH, Erlangen, Germany
,
Rüdiger Jakobs
6   Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Ultrasound, Erlangen, Germany
,
Hendrik Schulze-Koops
2   Munich University Hospital, Division of Rheumatology, Munich, Germany
,
Johannes von Kempis
1   Division of Rheumatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 12 August 2016
revised 15 February 2018

accepted 02 April 2018

Publication Date:
11 July 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The detection of joint swelling caused by synovitis is important for the diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis. Ultrasound (US) and MRI have proven to be more sensitive and reliable than physical examination, but they are time-consuming and expensive. The automated breast volume scanner was developed to acquire serial B-mode pictures of the female breast and these can be analyzed in all three dimensions.

Objectives To analyze the value of automated B-mode ultrasound employing the ABVS system in detecting synovitis of the finger joints compared to manual ultrasound (mUS) and physical examination, using MRI as the gold standard.

Methods 19 consecutive patients suffering from active rheumatoid (n=15) or psoriatic (n=4) arthritis were included. Automated and mUS were conducted with a linear array (ACUSON S2000™, 11 MHz). Multiplanar reconstruction enabled examination of the images for the presence of synovitis.

Results 90% of the hand joints were assessable by automated ultrasound. Automated US detected 12.0, mUS 14.2, MRI 13.4, and clinical examination 4.1 positive joints – i. e. joints with synovitis - on average per patient. The inter-observer reliability of both assessors for automated and mUS, MRI, and physical examination, was 66.9%, 72.7%, 95.1%, and 88.9%, respectively. 84.3% of the joints classified as positive on MRI were confirmed by automated ultrasound, 85.5% on mUS, and 36.0 on physical examination. This translated into a sensitivity of 83.5%, 85.5%, and 36.0% for the three methods, respectively. Conclusion: Automated ultrasound is a promising ultrasound method for assessing small joints in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

Key words

ultrasound - arthritides - hand

Supporting Information

    for this article is available online at for this article is available online at http://www.thieme-connect.de/products
  • Supporting Information
 

  • References

  • 1 Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham 3rd CO. et al. 2010; Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: An American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2010; 62: 2569-2581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, McShane DJ, Fries JF, Cooper NS. et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988; 31: 315-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Neogi T, Aletaha D, Silman AJ, Naden RL, Felson DT, Aggarwal R. et al. The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62 2582-2591
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 van der Heijde DM, van 't Hof M, van Riel PL, van de Putte LB. Validity of single variables and indices to measure disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1993; 20: 538-541
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Chernoff M, Fried B. et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1993; 36: 729-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JW, Breedveld FC, Boumpas D, Burmester G. et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: Recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010; 69: 631-637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Keystone EC, Smolen J, van Riel P. Developing an effective treatment algorithm for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012; 51 (Suppl. 05) v48-v54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Scott DL, Antoni C, Choy EH, Van Riel PC. Joint counts in routine practice. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003; 42: 919-923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Grunke M, Witt MN, Ronneberger M, Schnez A, Laubender RP, Engelbrecht M. et al. Use of the 28-joint count yields significantly higher concordance between different examiners than the 66/68-joint count. J Rheumatol. 2012; 39: 1334-1340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sokka T, Pincus T. Joint counts to assess rheumatoid arthritis for clinical research and usual clinical care: Advantages and limitations. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2009; 35: 713-722 v-vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Grunke M, Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, Hildebrand V, Dechant C, Schett G. et al. Standardization of joint examination technique leads to a significant decrease in variability among different examiners. J Rheumatol. 2010; 37: 860-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Scott DL, Choy EH, Greeves A, Isenberg D, Kassinor D, Rankin E. et al. Standardising joint assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 1996; 15: 579-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Witt M, Mueller F, Nigg A, Reindl C, Leipe J, Proft F. et al. Relevance of grade 1 gray-scale ultrasound findings in wrists and small joints to the assessment of subclinical synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and rheumatism 2013; 65: 1694-1701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rees JD, Pilcher J, Heron C, Kiely PD. A comparison of clinical vs ultrasound determined synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis utilizing gray-scale, power Doppler and the intravenous microbubble contrast agent 'Sono-Vue'. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007; 46: 454-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Naredo E, Bonilla G, Gamero F, Uson J, Carmona L, Laffon A. Assessment of inflammatory activity in rheumatoid arthritis: A comparative study of clinical evaluation with grey scale and power Doppler ultrasonography. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005; 64: 375-381
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rahmani M, Chegini H, Najafizadeh SR, Azimi M, Habibollahi P, Shakiba M. Detection of bone erosion in early rheumatoid arthritis: Ultrasonography and conventional radiography versus non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Rheumatol. 2010; 29: 883-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Baillet A, Gaujoux-Viala C, Mouterde G, Pham T, Tebib J, Saraux A. et al. Comparison of the efficacy of sonography, magnetic resonance imaging and conventional radiography for the detection of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011; 50: 1137-1147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hammer HB, Bolton-King P, Bakkeheim V, Berg TH, Sundt E, Kongtorp AK. et al. Examination of intra and interrater reliability with a new ultrasonographic reference atlas for scoring of synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011; 70: 1995-1998
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Naredo E, Moller I, Moragues C, de Agustin JJ, Scheel AK, Grassi W. et al Interobserver reliability in musculoskeletal ultrasonography: Results from a "Teach the Teachers" rheumatologist course. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006; 65: 14-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Broll M, Albrecht K, Tarner I, Muller-Ladner U, Strunk J. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography and low-field magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2012; 30: 543-547
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Horikoshi M, Suzuki T, Sugihara M, Kondo Y, Tsuboi H, Uehara T. et al. Comparison of low-field dedicated extremity magnetic resonance imaging with articular ultrasonography in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Mod Rheumatol 2010; 20: 556-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lassere M, McQueen F, Ostergaard M, Conaghan P, Shnier R, Peterfy C. et al. OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Exercise 3: An international multicenter reliability study using the RA-MRI Score. J Rheumatol. 2003; 30: 1366-1375
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ostergaard M, Edmonds J, McQueen F, Peterfy C, Lassere M, Ejbjerg B. et al. An introduction to the EULAR-OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64 (Suppl. 01) i3-i7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wohrle NK, Hellerhoff K, Notohamiprodjo M, Reiser MF, Clevert DA. [Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS): A new approach for breast imaging]. Radiologe 2010; 50: 973-981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U, Wiskirchen J, Gyapong S, Soliman AA. et al. The Automated Breast Volume Scanner (ABVS): Initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: A pilot study of 50 cases. Int J Womens Health 2011; 3: 337-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lin X, Wang J, Han F, Fu J, Li A. Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 873-878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Zhang J, Lai XJ, Zhu QL, Wang HY, Jiang YX, Liu H. et al. Interobserver agreement for sonograms of breast lesions obtained by an automated breast volume scanner. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 2179-2183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wang ZL, Xu JH, Li JL, Huang Y, Tang J. Comparison of automated breast volume scanning to hand-held ultrasound and mammography. Radiol Med 2012; 117: 1287-1293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham 3rd CO. et al. 2010; rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: An American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69: 1580-1588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Taylor W, Gladman D, Helliwell P, Marchesoni A, Mease P, Mielants H. Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis: Development of new criteria from a large international study. Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 54: 2665-2673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Jacobsen S, Klarlund M, Thomsen HS, Ostergaard M. Interobserver agreement in ultrasonography of the finger and toe joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003; 48: 955-962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Drossaers-Bakker KW, Kroon HM, Zwinderman AH, Breedveld FC, Hazes JM. Radiographic damage of large joints in long-term rheumatoid arthritis and its relation to function. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000; 39: 998-1003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Scott NR, Chakraborty J, Marks V. Determination of the urinary metabolites of caffeine and theophylline by high-performance liquid chromatography. A comparative study of a direct injection and an ion-pair extraction procedure. J Chromatogr. 1986; 375: 321-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Dale J, Stirling A, Zhang R, Purves D, Foley J, Sambrook M. et al. Targeting ultrasound remission in early rheumatoid arthritis: The results of the TaSER study, a randomised clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016; 75: 1043-1050
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Haavardsholm EA, Aga AB, Olsen IC, Lillegraven S, Hammer HB, Uhlig T. et al. Ultrasound in management of rheumatoid arthritis: ARCTIC randomised controlled strategy trial. BMJ 2016; 354: i4205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Zufferey P, Rebell C, Benaim C, Ziswiler HR, Dumusc A, So A. Ultrasound can be useful to predict an evolution towards rheumatoid arthritis in patients with inflammatory polyarthralgia without anticitrullinated antibodies. Joint Bone Spine. 2017; 84: 299-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ji L, Deng X, Geng Y, Song Z, Zhang Z. The additional benefit of ultrasonography to 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria when diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis in the absence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Clin Rheumatol. 2017; 36: 261-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 D'Agostino MA, Terslev L, Wakefield R, Ostergaard M, Balint P, Naredo E. et al. Novel algorithms for the pragmatic use of ultrasound in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: From diagnosis to remission. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016; 75: 1902-1908
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Scire CA, Montecucco C, Codullo V, Epis O, Todoerti M, Caporali R. Ultrasonographic evaluation of joint involvement in early rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission: Power Doppler signal predicts short-term relapse. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009; 48: 1092-1097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Dougados M, Devauchelle-Pensec V, Ferlet JF, Jousse-Joulin S, D'Agostino MA, Backhaus M. et al. The ability of synovitis to predict structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis: A comparative study between clinical examination and ultrasound. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013; 72: 665-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Sakellariou G, Montecucco C. Ultrasonography in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014; 32 (Suppl. 80) S20-S25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar