Intravenous contrast does not improve detection of nerve lesions or active muscle denervation changes in MR neurography of the common peroneal nerve

Multimodality imaging review of ulnar nerve pathologies

The ulnar nerve is the second most commonly entrapped nerve after the median nerve. Although clinical evaluation and electrodiagnostic studies remain widely used for the evaluation of ulnar neuropathy, advancements in imaging have led to increased utilization of these newer / better imaging techniques in the overall management of ulnar neuropathy. Specifically, high-resolution ultrasonography of peripheral nerves as well as MRI has become quite useful in evaluating the ulnar nerve in order to better guide treatment. The caliber and fascicular pattern identified in the normal ulnar nerves are important distinguishing features from ulnar nerve pathology. The cubital tunnel within the elbow and Guyon's canal within the wrist are important sites to evaluate with respect to ulnar nerve compression. Both acute and chronic conditions resulting in deformity, trauma as well as inflammatory conditions may predispose certain patients to ulnar neuropathy. Granulomatous diseases as well as both neurogenic and non-neurogenic tumors can also potentially result in ulnar neuropathy. Tumors around the ulnar nerve can also lead to mass effect on the nerve, particularly in tight spaces like the aforementioned canals. Although high-resolution ultrasonography is a useful modality initially, particularly as it can be helpful for dynamic evaluation, MRI remains most reliable due to its higher resolution. Newer imaging techniques like sonoelastography and microneurography, as well as nerve-specific contrast agents, are currently being investigated for their usefulness and are not routinely being used currently.

The role of imaging in focal neuropathies

Electrodiagnostic testing (EDX) has been the diagnostic tool of choice in peripheral nerve disease for many years, but in recent years, peripheral nerve imaging has been used ever more frequently in daily clinical practice. Nerve ultrasound and magnetic resonance (MR) neurography are able to visualize nerve structures reliably. These techniques can aid in localizing nerve pathology and can reveal significant anatomical abnormalities underlying nerve pathology that may have been otherwise undetected by EDX. As such, nerve ultrasound and MR neurography can significantly improve diagnostic accuracy and can have a significant effect on treatment strategy. In this chapter, the basic principles and recent developments of these techniques will be discussed, as well as their potential application in several types of peripheral nerve disease, such as carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE), radial neuropathy, brachial and lumbosacral plexopathy, neuralgic amyotrophy (NA), fibular, tibial, sciatic, femoral neuropathy, meralgia paresthetica, peripheral nerve trauma, tumors, and inflammatory neuropathies.

Can MR neurography of the common peroneal nerve predict a residual motor deficit in patients with foot drop?

OBJECTIVE

To determine if MR neurography of the common peroneal nerve (CPN) predicts a residual motor deficit at 12-month clinical follow-up in patients presenting with foot drop.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective search for MR neurography cases evaluating the CPN at the knee was performed. Patients were included if they had electrodiagnostic testing (EDX) within 3 months of imaging, ankle and/or forefoot dorsiflexion weakness at presentation, and at least 12-month follow-up. Two radiologists individually evaluated nerve size (enlarged/normal), nerve signal (T2 hyperintense/normal), muscle signal (T2 hyperintense/normal), muscle bulk (normal/Goutallier 1/Goutallier > 1), and nerve and muscle enhancement. Discrepancies were resolved via consensus review. Multivariable logistical regression was used to evaluate for association between each imaging finding and a residual motor deficit at 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-three 3 T MRIs in 22 patients (1 bilateral, mean age 52 years, 16 male) met inclusion criteria. Eighteen cases demonstrated common peroneal neuropathy on EDX, and median duration of symptoms was 5 months. Six cases demonstrated a residual motor deficit at 12-month follow-up. Fourteen cases underwent CPN decompression (1 bilateral) within 1 year of presentation. Three cases demonstrated Goutallier > 1 anterior compartment muscle bulk. Multivariable logistical regression did not show a statistically significant association between any of the imaging findings and a residual motor deficit at 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

MR neurography did not predict a residual motor deficit at 12-month follow-up in patients presenting with foot drop, though few patients demonstrated muscle atrophy in this study.

Neuropathy Score Reporting and Data System: A Reporting Guideline for MRI of Peripheral Neuropathy With a Multicenter Validation Study

Background: A standardized guideline and scoring system would improve evaluation and reporting of peripheral neuropathies on MRI. Objective: The objective of this study was to create and validate a neuropathy classification and grading system, which we named the Neuropathy Score Reporting and Data System (NS-RADS). Methods: This retrospective study included 100 patients with nerve imaging studies and known clinical diagnoses. Experts crafted NS-RADS using mutually agreed-upon qualitative criteria for the classification and grading of peripheral neuropathies. Different classes were created to account for the spectrum of underlying pathologies: unremarkable (U), injury (I), neoplasia (N), entrapment (E), diffuse neuropathy (D), not otherwise specified (NOS), and postintervention state (PI). Subclasses were established to describe the severity or extent of the lesions. Validation testing was performed by 11 readers from multiple institutions with experience levels ranging from 3 to 18 years after residency. After initial reader training, cases were presented to readers, who were blinded to final clinical diagnoses. Interobserver agreement was assessed using correlation coefficients and the Conger kappa, and accuracy testing was performed. Results: Final clinical diagnoses included normal (n = 5), nerve injury (n = 25), entrapment (n = 15), neoplasia (n = 33), diffuse neuropathy (n = 18), and persistent neuropathy after intervention (n = 4). The miscategorization rate for NS-RADS classes was 1.8%. Final diagnoses were correctly identified by readers in 71-88% of cases. Excellent interreader agreement was found on the NS-RADS pathology categorization (κ = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) as well as muscle pathology categorization (κ = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82]. The accuracy for determining milder versus more severe categories per radiologist ranged from 88% to 97% for nerve lesions and from 86% to 94% for muscle abnormalities. Conclusion: The proposed NS-RADS classification is accurate and reliable across different reader experience levels and a spectrum of peripheral neuropathy conditions. Clinical Impact: NS-RADS can be used as a standardized guideline for reporting peripheral neuropathies and improved multidisciplinary communications.