Literature DB >> 10862068

Detection of articular cartilage lesions: experimental evaluation of low- and high-field-strength MR imaging at 0.18 and 1.0 T.

K Woertler1, M Strothmann, B Tombach, P Reimer.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of a dedicated orthopedic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging system (0.18 T) and a conventional MR imaging system (1.0 T) in the detection of articular cartilage lesions. Fifty knee joint specimens of pigs with artificially created articular cartilage lesions of different diameters, grades (2-3), and localizations, as well as 50 joints with intact articular cartilage, were imaged at 0. 18 and 1.0 T. Diagnostic performance was determined by means of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis with three independent observers. For none of the pulse sequences used at 0.18 T or 1.0 T areas under ROC curves (A(z)) showed significant differences between the three observers. A(z) values from averaged data were as follows: a) 0.18 T: T1-weighted spin echo (SE): 0.70, proton-density-weighted SE: 0.59, T2-weighted SE: 0.61, two-dimensional (2D) gradient-echo (GRE): 0.73, 3D GRE: 0.75; and b) 1.0 T: T1-weighted SE: 0.73, fat-suppressed T2-weighted turbo-SE: 0. 79, 2D fast low-angle shot (FLASH): 0.79, fat-suppressed 3D FLASH: 0. 96, and water-excited 3D double-echo steady state (DESS): 0.96. With the use of 3D pulse sequences, the high-field system demonstrated a significantly better diagnostic performance than the low-field system in the detection of grades 2 and 3 articular cartilage lesions (P < 0.001). Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10862068     DOI: 10.1002/1522-2586(200006)11:6<678::aid-jmri15>3.0.co;2-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  13 in total

1.  Use magnetic resonance imaging to assess articular cartilage.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Wang; Anita E Wluka; Graeme Jones; Changhai Ding; Flavia M Cicuttini
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.346

2.  [Morphological and functional cartilage imaging].

Authors:  C Rehnitz; M-A Weber
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  [Morphological and functional cartilage imaging].

Authors:  C Rehnitz; M-A Weber
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 4.  Articular cartilage in the knee: current MR imaging techniques and applications in clinical practice and research.

Authors:  Michel D Crema; Frank W Roemer; Monica D Marra; Deborah Burstein; Garry E Gold; Felix Eckstein; Thomas Baum; Timothy J Mosher; John A Carrino; Ali Guermazi
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

5.  Normal and pathological MR findings in osteochondral autografts with longitudinal follow-up.

Authors:  Thomas M Link; Julia Mischung; Klaus Wörtler; Andreas Burkart; Ernst J Rummeny; Andreas B Imhoff
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-07-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Cartilage imaging: motivation, techniques, current and future significance.

Authors:  Thomas M Link; Robert Stahl; Klaus Woertler
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-11-09       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  The osteoarthritis initiative: report on the design rationale for the magnetic resonance imaging protocol for the knee.

Authors:  C G Peterfy; E Schneider; M Nevitt
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 6.576

Review 8.  Recent advances in MRI of articular cartilage.

Authors:  Garry E Gold; Christina A Chen; Seungbum Koo; Brian A Hargreaves; Neal K Bangerter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  A comparison of dedicated 1.0 T extremity MRI vs large-bore 1.5 T MRI for semiquantitative whole organ assessment of osteoarthritis: the MOST study.

Authors:  F W Roemer; J A Lynch; J Niu; Y Zhang; M D Crema; I Tolstykh; G Y El-Khoury; D T Felson; C E Lewis; M C Nevitt; A Guermazi
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2009-09-09       Impact factor: 6.576

10.  Mass screening for retrocochlear disorders: low-field-strength (0.2-T) versus high-field-strength (1.5-T) MR imaging.

Authors:  Frédérique Dubrulle; Julia Delomez; Alireza Kiaei; Pierre Berger; Christophe Vincent; François-Michel M Vaneecloo; Laurent Lemaitre
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2002 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 3.825

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.