Zhuo-Zhao Zheng1, Han Shan, Xuan Li. 1. Department of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 N Garden Rd, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of using fat-suppressed 3D volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) as a substitute for fat-suppressed 3D FLASH in cartilage MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fat-suppressed 3D VIBE and fat-suppressed 3D FLASH were prospectively performed in 82 patients. The acquisition time of these two sequences were 2 minutes 42 seconds and 3 minutes 53 seconds, respectively. Quantitative comparisons were made by calculating signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitative comparisons were made on the basis of two subjective scoring systems evaluating image artifacts and cartilage conspicuousness. In addition, in a subgroup of the 43 patients who underwent arthroscopy with cartilage grading, sensitivity and specificity of these two sequences for cartilage lesions were determined in comparison. RESULTS: Fat-suppressed 3D VIBE provided significantly higher cartilage SNR, cartilage-to-synovial fluid CNR, cartilage-to-meniscus CNR, and cartilage-to-bone marrow CNR than fat-suppressed 3D FLASH. Significantly less pulsation artifact and more severe truncation artifact were seen with fat-suppressed 3D VIBE. Deep cartilage surface conspicuousness in fat-suppressed 3D VIBE was better than that in fat-suppressed 3D FLASH, but superficial conspicuousness was relatively worse. In the patients who underwent arthroscopy, sensitivity and specificity for detecting cartilage lesions of grade 2 or higher were comparable for both sequences, with fat-suppressed 3D VIBE at 78.3% and 97.8% and fat-suppressed 3D FLASH at 79.7% and 97.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Fat-suppressed 3D VIBE is a promising substitute for fat-suppressed 3D FLASH as a more effective T1-weighted sequence in cartilage imaging.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of using fat-suppressed 3D volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) as a substitute for fat-suppressed 3D FLASH in cartilage MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fat-suppressed 3D VIBE and fat-suppressed 3D FLASH were prospectively performed in 82 patients. The acquisition time of these two sequences were 2 minutes 42 seconds and 3 minutes 53 seconds, respectively. Quantitative comparisons were made by calculating signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitative comparisons were made on the basis of two subjective scoring systems evaluating image artifacts and cartilage conspicuousness. In addition, in a subgroup of the 43 patients who underwent arthroscopy with cartilage grading, sensitivity and specificity of these two sequences for cartilage lesions were determined in comparison. RESULTS:Fat-suppressed 3D VIBE provided significantly higher cartilage SNR, cartilage-to-synovial fluid CNR, cartilage-to-meniscus CNR, and cartilage-to-bone marrow CNR than fat-suppressed 3D FLASH. Significantly less pulsation artifact and more severe truncation artifact were seen with fat-suppressed 3D VIBE. Deep cartilage surface conspicuousness in fat-suppressed 3D VIBE was better than that in fat-suppressed 3D FLASH, but superficial conspicuousness was relatively worse. In the patients who underwent arthroscopy, sensitivity and specificity for detecting cartilage lesions of grade 2 or higher were comparable for both sequences, with fat-suppressed 3D VIBE at 78.3% and 97.8% and fat-suppressed 3D FLASH at 79.7% and 97.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION:Fat-suppressed 3D VIBE is a promising substitute for fat-suppressed 3D FLASH as a more effective T1-weighted sequence in cartilage imaging.
Authors: Joris Van de Velde; Stephanie Bogaert; Pieter Vandemaele; Wouter Huysse; Eric Achten; Joris Leijnse; Wilfried De Neve; Tom Van Hoof Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2015-08-23 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: Gregory Chang; Cem M Deniz; Stephen Honig; Kenneth Egol; Ravinder R Regatte; Yudong Zhu; Daniel K Sodickson; Ryan Brown Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Seppo K Koskinen; Ville V Haapamäki; Jari Salo; Nina C Lindfors; Mika Kortesniemi; Lauri Seppälä; Kimmo T Mattila Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Márcio Navalho; Catarina Resende; Ana Maria Rodrigues; Augusto Gaspar; João Eurico Fonseca; Helena Canhão; Jorge Campos Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2011-02-12 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: E C Ang; A F Robertson; F A Malara; T O'Shea; J K Roebert; M E Schneider; A H Rotstein Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-09-10 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Mateusz C Florkow; Koen Willemsen; Vasco V Mascarenhas; Edwin H G Oei; Marijn van Stralen; Peter R Seevinck Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 5.119