Literature DB >> 16188466

3.0 vs 1.5 T MRI in the detection of focal cartilage pathology--ROC analysis in an experimental model.

T M Link1, C A Sell, J N Masi, C Phan, D Newitt, Y Lu, L Steinbach, S Majumdar.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To use receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis for assessing the diagnostic performance of three cartilage-specific MR sequences at 1.5 and 3 T in detecting cartilage lesions created in porcine knees.
DESIGN: Eighty-four cartilage lesions were created in 27 porcine knee specimens at the patella, the medial and lateral femoral and the medial and lateral tibial cartilage. MR imaging was performed using a fat saturated spoiled gradient echo (SPGR) sequence (in plane spatial resolution/slice thickness: 0.20 x 0.39 mm2/1.5 mm) and two fat saturated proton density weighted (PDw) sequences (low spatial resolution: 0.31 x 0.47 mm2/3 mm and high spatial resolution: 0.20 x 0.26 mm2/2 mm). The images were independently analyzed by three radiologists concerning the absence or presence of lesions using a five-level confidence scale. Significances of the differences for the individual sequences were calculated based on comparisons of areas under ROC curves (A(Z)).
RESULTS: The highest A(Z)-values for all three radiologists were consistently obtained for the SPGR (A(Z) = 0.84) and the high-resolution (hr) PDw (A(Z) = 0.79) sequences at 3T. The corresponding A(Z)-values at 1.5 T were 0.77 and 0.69; the differences between 1.5 and 3 T were statistically significant (P < 0.05). A(Z)-values for the low-resolution PDw sequence were lower: 0.59 at 3 T and 0.55 at 1.5 T and the differences between 1.5 and 3T were not significant.
CONCLUSION: With optimized hr MR sequences diagnostic performance in detecting cartilage lesions was improved at 3 T. For a standard, lower spatial resolution PDw sequence no significant differences, however, were found.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16188466     DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2005.08.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage        ISSN: 1063-4584            Impact factor:   6.576


  24 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  [Morphological and functional cartilage imaging].

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

5.  Non-traumatic anterior cruciate ligament abnormalities and their relationship to osteoarthritis using morphological grading and cartilage T2 relaxation times: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI).

Authors:  Keegan K Hovis; Hamza Alizai; Seng-Choe Tham; Richard B Souza; Michael C Nevitt; Charles E McCulloch; Thomas M Link
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2012-02-25       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  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

Review 7.  Novel contrast mechanisms at 3 Tesla and 7 Tesla.

Authors:  Ravinder R Regatte; Mark E Schweitzer
Journal:  Semin Musculoskelet Radiol       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 1.777

Review 8.  MR imaging of cartilage and its repair in the knee--a review.

Authors:  S Trattnig; S Domayer; G W Welsch; T Mosher; F Eckstein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Obtaining Imaging Cost and Quality Information in Femoroacetabular Impingement: The Patient Experience.

Authors:  Chris A Anthony; Edward O Rojas; Natalie Glass; Robert W Westermann; John C Clohisy; Stuart L Weinstein
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2020

10.  Comparative study of imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T of the knee.

Authors:  Scott Wong; Lynne Steinbach; Jian Zhao; Christoph Stehling; C Benjamin Ma; Thomas M Link
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.