Short tau inversion recovery (STIR) after intravenous contrast agent administration obscures bone marrow edema-like signal on forefoot MRI

Objective Short tau or short TI inversion recovery (STIR) MRI sequences are considered a robust fat suppression technique. However, STIR also suppresses signals from other tissues with similar T1 relaxation times. This study investigates the in vivo effect of intravenous gadolinium-based T1-shortening contrast agent on STIR signal. Materials and methods Institutional board approval and informed consent was obtained. MRI examinations (1.5-T or 3-T) of 31 prospectively included patients were analyzed by two readers. Signal intensity of degenerative bone marrow edema-like signal at the Lisfranc joint on precontrast STIR images and on STIR images acquired after intravenous contrast agent administration (gadoteric acid, gadolinium: 0.5 mmol/ml, 15 ml) was measured. The medial cuneiform bone without observable bone marrow edema-like signal was considered a healthy tissue and served as a reference. Relative changes in signal intensity between precontrast and postcontrast images were calculated for the two tissues. Wilcoxon signed-rank test served for statistical analyses. Results In bone marrow edema-like signal, both readers observed a median signal change of -35% (interquartile range (IQR) 24) and -34% (IQR 21), respectively, on postcontrast STIR images compared to precontrast STIR. In healthy tissue, the signal remained constant on postcontrast STIR images (median change -2%, IQR 15, and 0%, IQR 17) respectively. For both readers, postcontrast signal change in bone marrow edema-like signal differed from that in healthy tissue (p < 0.001). Conclusion Intravenous gadolinium-based contrast agent causes a significant reduction of signal intensity in bone marrow edema-like signal on routine STIR images. Thus, pathological MRI findings may be obscured.

Intravenous Contrast Agent in Abdominal CT: Is It Really Needed to Identify the Cause of Bowel Obstruction? Proof of Concept

Background. To compare sensitivity of unenhanced computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced CT for the identification of the etiology of bowel obstruction. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively evaluated abdominal CT scans of patients operated for bowel obstruction from March 2013 to October 2017. Two radiologists evaluated CT scans before and after contrast agent in two reading sessions. Then, we calculated sensitivity of CT in the diagnosis of bowel obstruction and determined in which cases the etiology of bowel obstruction was detected on both unenhanced and enhanced CT or on enhanced CT only. The reference standard was defined as the final diagnosis obtained after surgery. Results. Eighteen patients (mean age 72±15 years, age range 37-88 years) were included in the study. Sensitivity of unenhanced CT and enhanced CT was not significantly different in either small bowel obstruction (64%, 7/11 patients vs. 73%, 8/11 patients; P=0.6547) or large bowel obstruction (71%, 5/7 patients vs. 100%, 7/7 patients; P=0.1410). Adhesions were identified on unenhanced CT as the etiology of small bowel obstruction in 80% (4/5) of patients. Tumors were identified on unenhanced CT as the etiology of large bowel obstruction in 67% (4/6) of patients. Conclusion. In the diagnosis of small bowel obstruction due to adhesions with normal bowel wall thickening and when a neoplasm is identified as the etiology of large bowel obstruction on unenhanced CT, an intravenous contrast agent may be avoided for the identification of the etiology. In remaining cases, contrast agent is still recommended.