PURPOSE: To compare standard MR sagittal and coronal imaging of the knee with the MR technique of finer sagittal imaging and subsequent reconstruction in any plane. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients took part in the study. Two radiologists each made two independent interpretations in every case, based on images of: a) 4-mm sagittal and coronal slices; and b) 1.2-mm sagittal slices with subsequent reconstruction. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in diagnostic efficacy between the two MR techniques. The reconstruction in any desired plane involved a potential reduction of 10 min in examination time but an increase of approximately 20 min in postprocessing time. CONCLUSION: The use of multiplanar reconstruction offered no additional diagnostic value and no saving of time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wieslander et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: