PURPOSE: The objectives of the study were to compare MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T in the same patients concerning image quality and visualization of cartilage pathology and to assess diagnostic performance using arthroscopy as a standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients were identified retrospectively as having comparative 1.5 and 3.0 T MR studies of the knee within an average of 102 days. Standard protocols included T1-weighted and fat-saturated intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo sequences in three planes; sequence parameters had been adjusted to account for differences in relaxation at 3.0 T. Arthroscopy was performed in 19 patients. Four radiologists reviewed each study independently, scored image quality, and analyzed pathological findings. Sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies in diagnosing cartilage lesions were calculated in the 19 patients with arthroscopy, and differences between 1.5 and 3.0 T exams were compared using paired Student's t tests with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. RESULTS: Each radiologist scored the 3.0 T studies higher than those obtained at 1.5 T in visualizing anatomical structures and abnormalities (p < 0.05). Using arthroscopy as a standard of reference, diagnosis of cartilage abnormalities was improved at 3.0 T with higher sensitivity (75.7% versus 70.6%), accuracy (88.2% versus 86.4%), and correct grading of cartilage lesions (51.3% versus 42.9%). Diagnostic confidence scores were higher at 3.0 than 1.5 T (p < 0.05) and signal-to-noise ratio at 3.0 T was approximately twofold higher than at 1.5 T. CONCLUSION: MRI at 3.0 T improved visualization of anatomical structures and improved diagnostic confidence compared to 1.5 T. This resulted in significantly better sensitivity and grading of cartilage lesions at the knee.
PURPOSE: The objectives of the study were to compare MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T in the same patients concerning image quality and visualization of cartilage pathology and to assess diagnostic performance using arthroscopy as a standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients were identified retrospectively as having comparative 1.5 and 3.0 T MR studies of the knee within an average of 102 days. Standard protocols included T1-weighted and fat-saturated intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo sequences in three planes; sequence parameters had been adjusted to account for differences in relaxation at 3.0 T. Arthroscopy was performed in 19 patients. Four radiologists reviewed each study independently, scored image quality, and analyzed pathological findings. Sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies in diagnosing cartilage lesions were calculated in the 19 patients with arthroscopy, and differences between 1.5 and 3.0 T exams were compared using paired Student's t tests with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. RESULTS: Each radiologist scored the 3.0 T studies higher than those obtained at 1.5 T in visualizing anatomical structures and abnormalities (p < 0.05). Using arthroscopy as a standard of reference, diagnosis of cartilage abnormalities was improved at 3.0 T with higher sensitivity (75.7% versus 70.6%), accuracy (88.2% versus 86.4%), and correct grading of cartilage lesions (51.3% versus 42.9%). Diagnostic confidence scores were higher at 3.0 than 1.5 T (p < 0.05) and signal-to-noise ratio at 3.0 T was approximately twofold higher than at 1.5 T. CONCLUSION: MRI at 3.0 T improved visualization of anatomical structures and improved diagnostic confidence compared to 1.5 T. This resulted in significantly better sensitivity and grading of cartilage lesions at the knee.
Authors: F Fischbach; H Bruhn; F Unterhauser; J Ricke; G Wieners; R Felix; A Weiler; R J Schröder Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Hiroshi Yoshioka; Kathryn Stevens; Brian A Hargreaves; Daniel Steines; Mark Genovese; Michael F Dillingham; Carl S Winalski; Philipp Lang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jeffrey N Masi; Christian A Sell; Catherine Phan; Eric Han; David Newitt; Lynne Steinbach; Sharmila Majumdar; Thomas M Link Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Richard Kijowski; Donna G Blankenbaker; Kirkland W Davis; Kazuhiko Shinki; Lee D Kaplan; Arthur A De Smet Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
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
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
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
Authors: Lars V von Engelhardt; Matthias Lahner; André Klussmann; Bertil Bouillon; Andreas Dàvid; Patrick Haage; Thomas K Lichtinger Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: George P Pappas; Melissa A Vogelsong; Ernesto Staroswiecki; Garry E Gold; Marc R Safran Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 3.638