OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use morphological as well as biochemical (T2 and T2* relaxation times and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the evaluation of healthy cartilage and cartilage repair tissue after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) of the ankle joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers (mean age, 32.4 years) and 12 patients who underwent MACT of the ankle joint (mean age, 32.8 years) were included. In order to evaluate possible maturation effects, patients were separated into short-term (6-13 months) and long-term (20-54 months) follow-up cohorts. MRI was performed on a 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) scanner using a new dedicated eight-channel foot-and-ankle coil. Using high-resolution morphological MRI, the magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) score was assessed. For biochemical MRI, T2 mapping, T2* mapping, and DWI were obtained. Region-of-interest analysis was performed within native cartilage of the volunteers and control cartilage as well as cartilage repair tissue in the patients subsequent to MACT. RESULTS: The overall MOCART score in patients after MACT was 73.8. T2 relaxation times (approximately 50 ms), T2* relaxation times (approximately 16 ms), and the diffusion constant for DWI (approximately 1.3) were comparable for the healthy volunteers and the control cartilage in the patients after MACT. The cartilage repair tissue showed no significant difference in T2 and T2* relaxation times (p > or = 0.05) compared to the control cartilage; however, a significantly higher diffusivity (approximately 1.5; p < 0.05) was noted in the cartilage repair tissue. CONCLUSION: The obtained results suggest that besides morphological MRI and biochemical MR techniques, such as T2 and T2* mapping, DWI may also deliver additional information about the ultrastructure of cartilage and cartilage repair tissue in the ankle joint using high-field MRI, a dedicated multichannel coil, and sophisticated sequences.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use morphological as well as biochemical (T2 and T2* relaxation times and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the evaluation of healthy cartilage and cartilage repair tissue after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) of the ankle joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers (mean age, 32.4 years) and 12 patients who underwent MACT of the ankle joint (mean age, 32.8 years) were included. In order to evaluate possible maturation effects, patients were separated into short-term (6-13 months) and long-term (20-54 months) follow-up cohorts. MRI was performed on a 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) scanner using a new dedicated eight-channel foot-and-ankle coil. Using high-resolution morphological MRI, the magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) score was assessed. For biochemical MRI, T2 mapping, T2* mapping, and DWI were obtained. Region-of-interest analysis was performed within native cartilage of the volunteers and control cartilage as well as cartilage repair tissue in the patients subsequent to MACT. RESULTS: The overall MOCART score in patients after MACT was 73.8. T2 relaxation times (approximately 50 ms), T2* relaxation times (approximately 16 ms), and the diffusion constant for DWI (approximately 1.3) were comparable for the healthy volunteers and the control cartilage in the patients after MACT. The cartilage repair tissue showed no significant difference in T2 and T2* relaxation times (p > or = 0.05) compared to the control cartilage; however, a significantly higher diffusivity (approximately 1.5; p < 0.05) was noted in the cartilage repair tissue. CONCLUSION: The obtained results suggest that besides morphological MRI and biochemical MR techniques, such as T2 and T2* mapping, DWI may also deliver additional information about the ultrastructure of cartilage and cartilage repair tissue in the ankle joint using high-field MRI, a dedicated multichannel coil, and sophisticated sequences.
Authors: H E Smith; T J Mosher; B J Dardzinski; B G Collins; C M Collins; Q X Yang; V J Schmithorst; M B Smith Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M T Nieminen; J Rieppo; J Töyräs; J M Hakumäki; J Silvennoinen; M M Hyttinen; H J Helminen; J S Jurvelin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Sylvain R Duc; Peter Koch; Marius R Schmid; Wilhelm Horger; Juerg Hodler; Christian W A Pfirrmann Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-03-30 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S E Domayer; F Kutscha-Lissberg; G Welsch; R Dorotka; S Nehrer; C Gäbler; T C Mamisch; S Trattnig Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2008-01-18 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Goetz Hannes Welsch; Siegfried Trattnig; Tatjana Paternostro-Sluga; Klaus Bohndorf; Sabine Goed; David Stelzeneder; Tallal Charles Mamisch Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 2.199