Literature DB >> 15987970

Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model.

Jeffrey N Masi1, Christian A Sell, Catherine Phan, Eric Han, David Newitt, Lynne Steinbach, Sharmila Majumdar, Thomas M Link.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare 1.5- and 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) images of porcine knee specimens containing artificial cartilage lesions in terms of accuracy of lesion depiction, image quality, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study had institutional review board approval, and informed consent was obtained from the human volunteers. Two fat-saturated cartilage MR imaging sequences (an intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo [SE] sequence and a spoiled gradient-echo [GRE] sequence) were optimized for imaging at 3.0 T in two human volunteers and then used to image 10 porcine knees in which 29 artificial cartilage lesions had been created. Corresponding sequences were used at 1.5 T for all specimens. Images were assessed by two radiologists in consensus, and diagnostic performance in lesion depiction was determined by using macroscopic findings in specimen slices as a reference standard. SNRs were also calculated. For statistical analysis, the McNemar test of discordant pairs was used with a level of significance of P < .05.
RESULTS: The best diagnostic performance for both the intermediate-weighted fast SE and the spoiled GRE sequences was achieved at 3.0 T. With use of corresponding fat-saturated intermediate-weighted fast SE sequences with an identical acquisition time (9 minutes 44 seconds), 26 (90%) of 29 lesions were detected at 3.0 T, while 18 (62%) were detected at 1.5 T. With use of fat-saturated spoiled GRE sequences, 24 (83%) of 29 lesions were detected at 3.0 T (acquisition time, 8 minutes 48 seconds), and 23 (79%) lesions were detected at 1.5 T (acquisition time, 11 minutes 14 seconds). The rate of correct lesion grade assessment was 65% (17 of 26 lesions) at 3.0 T and 61% (11 of 18 lesions) at 1.5 T with the intermediate-weighted fast SE sequences and 83% (20 of 24 lesions) at 3.0 T and 70% (16 of 23 lesions) at 1.5 T with the spoiled GRE sequences. Both subjective evaluation of image quality and SNR values were significantly higher at 3.0 T (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: In this animal model, MR imaging at 3.0 T increased the accuracy of cartilage lesion assessment when compared with imaging at 1.5 T. Image quality and SNR were highest at 3.0 T. Copyright RSNA, 2005

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15987970     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2361040747

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  30 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee at 3 and 7 tesla: a comparison using dedicated multi-channel coils and optimised 2D and 3D protocols.

Authors:  Goetz H Welsch; Vladimir Juras; Pavol Szomolanyi; Tallal C Mamisch; Peter Baer; Claudia Kronnerwetter; Matthias Blanke; Hiroyuki Fujita; Siegfried Trattnig
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: optimizing 3 Tesla imaging.

Authors:  Lauren Shapiro; Ernesto Staroswiecki; Garry Gold
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 0.800

Review 3.  Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution?

Authors:  Olivier Rouvière; Robert P Hartman; Denis Lyonnet
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-09-10       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Routine clinical knee MR reports: comparison of diagnostic performance at 1.5 T and 3.0 T for assessment of the articular cartilage.

Authors:  Jacob C Mandell; Jeffrey A Rhodes; Nehal Shah; Glenn C Gaviola; Andreas H Gomoll; Stacy E Smith
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Optimized spectrally selective steady-state free precession sequences for cartilage imaging at ultra-high fields.

Authors:  O Bieri; T C Mamisch; S Trattnig; O Kraff; M E Ladd; K Scheffler
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 2.310

Review 6.  Imaging osteoarthritis: magnetic resonance imaging versus x-ray.

Authors:  Charles Peterfy; Manish Kothari
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.592

Review 7.  Muskuloskeletal MR imaging at 3.0 T: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Nicolae Bolog; Daniel Nanz; Dominik Weishaupt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-16       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  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

9.  Assessment of cartilage-dedicated sequences at ultra-high-field MRI: comparison of imaging performance and diagnostic confidence between 3.0 and 7.0 T with respect to osteoarthritis-induced changes at the knee joint.

Authors:  Robert Stahl; Roland Krug; Douglas A C Kelley; Jin Zuo; C Benjamin Ma; Sharmila Majumdar; Thomas M Link
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  How reliable is MRI in diagnosing cartilaginous lesions in patients with first and recurrent lateral patellar dislocations?

Authors:  Lars V von Engelhardt; Marthina Raddatz; Bertil Bouillon; Gunter Spahn; Andreas Dàvid; Patrick Haage; Thomas K Lichtinger
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-07-05       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.