Literature DB >> 19164121

Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint.

Richard Kijowski1, Donna G Blankenbaker, Kirkland W Davis, Kazuhiko Shinki, Lee D Kaplan, Arthur A De Smet.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the diagnostic performance of 1.5- and 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocols for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint in symptomatic patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was performed with a waiver of informed consent from the institutional review board. The study group consisted of 200 symptomatic patients undergoing MR examination of the knee at 1.5 T (61 men, 39 women; mean age, 38.9 years) or 3.0 T (52 men, 48 women; mean age, 39.1 years), who also underwent subsequent arthroscopic knee surgery. All MR examinations consisted of multiplanar fast spin-echo sequences with similar tissue contrast at 1.5 and 3.0 T. All articular surfaces were graded at arthroscopy by using the Noyes classification system. Three musculoskeletal radiologists retrospectively and independently graded all articular surfaces seen at MR imaging by using a similar classification system. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 1.5- and 3.0-T MR protocols for detecting cartilage lesions were determined by using arthroscopy as the reference standard. The z test was used to compare sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values at 1.5 and 3.0 T.
RESULTS: For all readers combined, the respective sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MR imaging for detecting cartilage lesions were 69.3%, 78.0%, and 74.5% at 1.5 T (n = 241) and 70.5%, 85.9%, and 80.1% at 3.0 T (n = 226). The MR imaging protocol had significantly higher specificity and accuracy (P < .05) but not higher sensitivity (P = .73) for detecting cartilage lesions at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T.
CONCLUSION: A 3.0-T MR protocol has improved diagnostic performance for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint in symptomatic patients when compared with a 1.5-T protocol. RSNA, 2009

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19164121     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2503080822

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


  41 in total

Review 1.  The clinical utility and diagnostic performance of MRI for identification and classification of knee osteochondritis dissecans.

Authors:  Carmen E Quatman; Catherine C Quatman-Yates; Laura C Schmitt; Mark V Paterno
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  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

3.  Chronic anterior cruciate ligament tears and associated meniscal and traumatic cartilage lesions: evaluation with morphological sequences at 3.0 T.

Authors:  Marianna Vlychou; Michalis Hantes; Sotirios Michalitsis; Aspasia Tsezou; Ioannis V Fezoulidis; Konstantinos Malizos
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  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

5.  [Morphological and functional cartilage imaging].

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

6.  CAIPIRINHA-accelerated 10-min 3D TSE MRI of the ankle for the diagnosis of painful ankle conditions: Performance evaluation in 70 patients.

Authors:  Benjamin Fritz; Susanne Bensler; Gaurav K Thawait; Esther Raithel; Steven E Stern; Jan Fritz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  The clinical utility and diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging for identification of early and advanced knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Carmen E Quatman; Carolyn M Hettrich; Laura C Schmitt; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  [Morphological and functional cartilage imaging].

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

9.  Deep Learning Approach for Evaluating Knee MR Images: Achieving High Diagnostic Performance for Cartilage Lesion Detection.

Authors:  Fang Liu; Zhaoye Zhou; Alexey Samsonov; Donna Blankenbaker; Will Larison; Andrew Kanarek; Kevin Lian; Shivkumar Kambhampati; Richard Kijowski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 11.105

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.