Literature DB >> 19692842

T1(Gd) gives comparable information as Delta T1 relaxation rate in dGEMRIC evaluation of cartilage repair tissue.

Siegfried Trattnig1, Dehorah Burstein, Pavol Szomolanyi, Katja Pinker, Goetz H Welsch, Tallal C Mamisch.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between T1 after intravenous contrast administration (T1Gd) and Delta relaxation rate (DeltaR1) = (1/T1(Gd) - 1/T1o) in the delayed Gadolinium-Enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) evaluation of cartilage repair tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty single MR examinations from 30 patients after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantations of the knee joint with different postoperative intervals were examined using an 8-channel knee-coil at 3T. T1 mapping using a 3D GRE sequence with a 35/10 degrees flip angle excitation pulse combination was performed before and after contrast administration (dGEMRIC technique). T1 postcontrast (T1(Gd)) and the DeltaR1 (relative index of pre- and postcontrast R1 value) were calculated for repair tissue and the weight-bearing normal appearing control cartilage. For evaluation of the different postoperative intervals, MR exams were subdivided into 3 groups (up to 12 months, 12-24 months, more than 24 months). For statistical analysis Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated.
RESULTS: The mean value for T1 postcontrast was 427 +/- 159 ms, for DeltaR1 1.85 +/- 1.0; in reference cartilage 636 +/- 181 ms for T1 postcontrast and 0.83 +/- 0.5 for DeltaR1.The correlation coefficients were highly significant between T1 (Gd) and DeltaR1 for repair tissue (0.969) as well as normal reference cartilage (0.928) in total, and for the reparative cartilage in the early, middle postoperative, and late postoperative interval after surgery (R values: -0.986, -0.970, and -0.978, respectively). Using either T1(Gd) or DeltaR1, the 2 metrics resulted in similar conclusions regarding the time course of change of repair tissue and control tissue, namely that highly significant (P > 0.01) differences between cartilage repair tissue and reference cartilage were found for all follow-up groups. Additionally, for both metrics highly significant differences (P < 0.01) between early follow up and the 2 later postoperative groups for cartilage repair tissue were found. No statistical differences were found between the 2 later follow-up groups of reparative cartilage either for T1 (Gd) or DeltaR1.
CONCLUSION: The high correlation between T1 (Gd) and DeltaR1 and the comparable conclusions reached utilizing metric implies that T1 mapping before intravenous administration of MR contrast agent is not necessary for the evaluation of repair tissue. This will help to reduce costs, inconvenience for the patients, simplifies the examination procedure, and makes dGEMRIC more attractive for follow-up of patients after cartilage repair surgeries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19692842     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181b4c236

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  13 in total

1.  Topographical and depth-dependent glycosaminoglycan concentration in canine medial tibial cartilage 3 weeks after anterior cruciate ligament transection surgery-a microscopic imaging study.

Authors:  Daniel Mittelstaedt; David Kahn; Yang Xia
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2016-12

2.  MR imaging assessment of articular cartilage repair procedures.

Authors:  Gregory Chang; Orrin Sherman; Guillaume Madelin; Michael Recht; Ravinder Regatte
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 2.266

3.  Sodium magnetic resonance imaging of ankle joint in cadaver specimens, volunteers, and patients after different cartilage repair techniques at 7 T: initial results.

Authors:  Štefan Zbýň; Martin O Brix; Vladimir Juras; Stephan E Domayer; Sonja M Walzer; Vladimir Mlynarik; Sebastian Apprich; Kai Buckenmaier; Reinhard Windhager; Siegfried Trattnig
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 6.016

Review 4.  The evolution of articular cartilage imaging and its impact on clinical practice.

Authors:  Carl S Winalski; Prabhakar Rajiah
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 5.  Quantitative radiologic imaging techniques for articular cartilage composition: toward early diagnosis and development of disease-modifying therapeutics for osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Edwin H G Oei; Jasper van Tiel; William H Robinson; Garry E Gold
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.794

6.  Reproducibility of 3D delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) of the knee at 3.0 T in patients with early stage osteoarthritis.

Authors:  J van Tiel; E E Bron; C J Tiderius; P K Bos; M Reijman; S Klein; J A N Verhaar; G P Krestin; H Weinans; G Kotek; E H G Oei
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-08-11       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Quantitative parametric MRI of articular cartilage: a review of progress and open challenges.

Authors:  D A Binks; R J Hodgson; M E Ries; R J Foster; S W Smye; D McGonagle; A Radjenovic
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Cartilage repair of the knee with Hyalograft C:® magnetic resonance imaging assessment of the glycosaminoglycan content at midterm.

Authors:  Martin O Brix; David Stelzeneder; Siegfried Trattnig; Reinhard Windhager; Stephan E Domayer
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products and Exemptions to the Regulation 1394/2007: How Confident Can We be? An Exploratory Analysis.

Authors:  Philippe Van Wilder
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 5.810

Review 10.  Cartilage repair surgery: outcome evaluation by using noninvasive cartilage biomarkers based on quantitative MRI techniques?

Authors:  Pia M Jungmann; Thomas Baum; Jan S Bauer; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Benjamin Erdle; Thomas M Link; Xiaojuan Li; Siegfried Trattnig; Ernst J Rummeny; Klaus Woertler; Goetz H Welsch
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-05-04       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.