Literature DB >> 19350234

Comparative study of imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T of the knee.

Scott Wong1, Lynne Steinbach, Jian Zhao, Christoph Stehling, C Benjamin Ma, Thomas M Link.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19350234      PMCID: PMC2704948          DOI: 10.1007/s00256-009-0683-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  26 in total

1.  Meniscal tears diagnosed with MR imaging versus arthroscopy: how reliable a standard is arthroscopy?

Authors:  S F Quinn; T F Brown
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Error patterns in the MR imaging evaluation of menisci of the knee.

Authors:  W W Justice; S F Quinn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage in the knee. An evaluation with use of fast-spin-echo imaging.

Authors:  H G Potter; J M Linklater; A A Allen; J A Hannafin; S B Haas
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Arthroscopic assessment of the posterior compartments of the knee via the intercondylar notch: the arthroscopist's field of view.

Authors:  W D Morin; J R Steadman
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging of hyaline cartilage defects at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of medium T2-weighted fast spin echo, T1-weighted two-dimensional and three-dimensional gradient echo pulse sequences.

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

6.  Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage of the knee: comparison between fat-suppressed three-dimensional SPGR imaging, fat-suppressed FSE imaging, and fat-suppressed three-dimensional DEFT imaging, and correlation with arthroscopy.

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

7.  Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model.

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

Review 8.  What's new in cartilage?

Authors:  Garry E Gold; Thomas R McCauley; Martha L Gray; David G Disler
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.333

9.  Accuracy of fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo FLASH MR imaging in the detection of patellofemoral articular cartilage abnormalities.

Authors:  M P Recht; D W Piraino; G A Paletta; J P Schils; G H Belhobek
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 11.105

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

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

View more
  30 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

Review 2.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: optimizing 3 Tesla imaging.

Authors:  Lauren Shapiro; Ernesto Staroswiecki; Garry Gold
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 0.800

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Non-traumatic anterior cruciate ligament abnormalities and their relationship to osteoarthritis using morphological grading and cartilage T2 relaxation times: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI).

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

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.  Arthroscopy vs. MRI for a detailed assessment of cartilage disease in osteoarthritis: diagnostic value of MRI in clinical practice.

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

9.  [Imaging strategies for knee injuries].

Authors:  K Hegenscheid; R Puls; C Rosenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 0.635

10.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Asymptomatic Knees in Collegiate Basketball Players: The Effect of One Season of Play.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.