PURPOSE: To compare the precision and accuracy of 3.0-T and 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the quantification of cartilage volume by using direct volumetric measurements as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The local animal experimentation committee did not require its approval for this study. Porcine knees were obtained from an abattoir. These specimens were used to optimize imaging parameters regarding effective signal-to-noise ratio (SNRE) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRE) for a fat-saturated spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state (SPGR) sequence, a water excitation SPGR sequence, and a fast spin-echo sequence at 3.0 T and a fat-saturated SPGR sequence at 1.5 T. By using the optimized sequences, 18 specimens were imaged in less than 6 minutes per sequence. A fivefold repetition of measurements of four specimens was performed for precision analysis. Cartilage was segmented by using semiautomatic software to calculate the volume. After imaging, the cartilage was scraped off and the volume was measured directly by using a saline-displacement method to calculate accuracy. Precision and accuracy errors were calculated as the root-mean-squares of the single errors per specimen. RESULTS: SNRE and CNRE values, respectively, were highest for the water excitation sequence at 3.0 T (1.81 sec(-1/2) and 1.27 sec(-1/2)), followed by the fat-saturated SPGR sequence (1.52 sec(-1/2) and 1.07 sec(-1/2)). The fast spin-echo sequence and the fat-saturated SPGR sequence at 1.5 T had lower SNR(E) (1.27 sec(-1/2) and 0.59 sec(-1/2), respectively). Accuracy error for MR-based volume calculation at the femur was 5.0%, 3.0%, 21%, and 16% for the water excitation, fat-saturated SPGR, and fast spin-echo sequences at 3.0 T and the fat-saturated SPGR sequence at 1.5 T, respectively. CONCLUSION: MR imaging at 3.0 T was shown in our study to better quantify cartilage volume. SNRE and CNRE were substantially improved, resulting in significantly higher accuracy in determining cartilage volume.
PURPOSE: To compare the precision and accuracy of 3.0-T and 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the quantification of cartilage volume by using direct volumetric measurements as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The local animal experimentation committee did not require its approval for this study. Porcine knees were obtained from an abattoir. These specimens were used to optimize imaging parameters regarding effective signal-to-noise ratio (SNRE) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRE) for a fat-saturated spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state (SPGR) sequence, a water excitation SPGR sequence, and a fast spin-echo sequence at 3.0 T and a fat-saturated SPGR sequence at 1.5 T. By using the optimized sequences, 18 specimens were imaged in less than 6 minutes per sequence. A fivefold repetition of measurements of four specimens was performed for precision analysis. Cartilage was segmented by using semiautomatic software to calculate the volume. After imaging, the cartilage was scraped off and the volume was measured directly by using a saline-displacement method to calculate accuracy. Precision and accuracy errors were calculated as the root-mean-squares of the single errors per specimen. RESULTS: SNRE and CNRE values, respectively, were highest for the water excitation sequence at 3.0 T (1.81 sec(-1/2) and 1.27 sec(-1/2)), followed by the fat-saturated SPGR sequence (1.52 sec(-1/2) and 1.07 sec(-1/2)). The fast spin-echo sequence and the fat-saturated SPGR sequence at 1.5 T had lower SNR(E) (1.27 sec(-1/2) and 0.59 sec(-1/2), respectively). Accuracy error for MR-based volume calculation at the femur was 5.0%, 3.0%, 21%, and 16% for the water excitation, fat-saturated SPGR, and fast spin-echo sequences at 3.0 T and the fat-saturated SPGR sequence at 1.5 T, respectively. CONCLUSION: MR imaging at 3.0 T was shown in our study to better quantify cartilage volume. SNRE and CNRE were substantially improved, resulting in significantly higher accuracy in determining cartilage volume.
Authors: Gregory Chang; Graham C Wiggins; Ding Xia; Riccardo Lattanzi; Guillaume Madelin; Jose G Raya; Matthew Finnerty; Hiroyuki Fujita; Michael P Recht; Ravinder R Regatte Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Julio Carballido-Gamio; Jan S Bauer; Robert Stahl; Keh-Yang Lee; Stefanie Krause; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: M E Bowers; G A Tung; N Trinh; E Leventhal; J J Crisco; B Kimia; B C Fleming Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 6.576