PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of the vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction steady-state free precession (VIPR-SSFP) sequence for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A magnetic resonance (MR) examination of the knee was performed on 33 subjects using a GE 1.5T scanner and a phased-array extremity coil. VIPR-SSFP, proton density-weighted fast spin-echo (PD-FSE), fat-suppressed T2-weighted fast spin-echo (T2-FSE), and three-dimensional fat-suppressed spoiled gradient recall-echo (SPGR) sequences were performed on three asymptomatic volunteers and 10 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Signal-to-noise efficiency, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements were calculated for all sequences and compared with the use of paired t-tests. The VIPR-SSFP sequence was then performed on 20 consecutive patients who were undergoing a routine MR examination of the knee. RESULTS: The cartilage signal-to-noise efficiency of the VIPR-SSFP sequence was not significantly different from that of the PD-FSE and SPGR sequences. The cartilage signal-to-noise efficiency of the VIPR-SSFP sequence was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that of the T2-FSE sequence. The VIPR-SSFP sequence produced images with significantly higher (P < 0.05) CNR between cartilage and synovial fluid than the PD-FSE and SPGR sequences, and significantly higher (P < 0.05) CNR between cartilage and subchondral bone than the T2-FSE sequence. The VIPR-SSFP sequence allowed excellent visualization of the articular cartilage of the knee joint in all subjects. All articular cartilage defects identified on the PD-FSE, T2-FSE, and SPGR images were well visualized on the VIPR-SSFP images. CONCLUSION: VIPR-SSFP images had high cartilage signal-to-noise efficiency and high CNR between cartilage and adjacent synovial fluid and subchondral bone; therefore, the sequence is well suited for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of the vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction steady-state free precession (VIPR-SSFP) sequence for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A magnetic resonance (MR) examination of the knee was performed on 33 subjects using a GE 1.5T scanner and a phased-array extremity coil. VIPR-SSFP, proton density-weighted fast spin-echo (PD-FSE), fat-suppressed T2-weighted fast spin-echo (T2-FSE), and three-dimensional fat-suppressed spoiled gradient recall-echo (SPGR) sequences were performed on three asymptomatic volunteers and 10 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Signal-to-noise efficiency, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements were calculated for all sequences and compared with the use of paired t-tests. The VIPR-SSFP sequence was then performed on 20 consecutive patients who were undergoing a routine MR examination of the knee. RESULTS: The cartilage signal-to-noise efficiency of the VIPR-SSFP sequence was not significantly different from that of the PD-FSE and SPGR sequences. The cartilage signal-to-noise efficiency of the VIPR-SSFP sequence was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that of the T2-FSE sequence. The VIPR-SSFP sequence produced images with significantly higher (P < 0.05) CNR between cartilage and synovial fluid than the PD-FSE and SPGR sequences, and significantly higher (P < 0.05) CNR between cartilage and subchondral bone than the T2-FSE sequence. The VIPR-SSFP sequence allowed excellent visualization of the articular cartilage of the knee joint in all subjects. All articular cartilage defects identified on the PD-FSE, T2-FSE, and SPGR images were well visualized on the VIPR-SSFP images. CONCLUSION:VIPR-SSFP images had high cartilage signal-to-noise efficiency and high CNR between cartilage and adjacent synovial fluid and subchondral bone; therefore, the sequence is well suited for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Christina A Chen; Richard Kijowski; Lauren M Shapiro; Michael J Tuite; Kirkland W Davis; Jessica L Klaers; Walter F Block; Scott B Reeder; Garry E Gold Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Habib Al saleh; Larry Hernandez; Kenneth S Lee; Humberto G Rosas; Walter F Block; Richard Kijowski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Catherine J Moran; Ethan K Brodsky; Leah Henze Bancroft; Scott B Reeder; Huanzhou Yu; Richard Kijowski; Dorothee Engel; Walter F Block Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Catherine J Moran; Frederick Kelcz; Youngkyoo Jung; Ethan K Brodsky; Sean B Fain; Walter F Block Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Eric M Bultman; Jessica Klaers; Kevin M Johnson; Christopher J François; Mark L Schiebler; Scott B Reeder; Walter F Block Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.130