PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability of the dGEMRIC (delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage) method in osteoarthritis-prone knee joints for three different T1 quantification techniques: two-dimensional inversion recovery (2D-IR), three-dimensional Look-Locker (3D-LL), and three-dimensional variable flip angle (3D-VFA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine subjects were examined twice, with a 2-week interval, using all three measurement techniques. Four regions of interest were defined in the central medial and lateral femoral cartilage. The repeatability was evaluated for each measurement technique. For the 3D techniques, the variation between different slices was also evaluated. RESULTS: Repeatability expressed by root-mean-square coefficient of variation (CV(RMS)) showed similar results for 2D-IR and 3D-LL (5.4-8.4%). For 3D-VFA CV(RMS) was higher (9.3-15.2%). Intraclass correlation coefficient showed both 2D-IR and 3D-LL reliability to be moderate, while 3D-VFA reliability was low. Inter-slice CV(RMS) and ICC was of the same magnitude as the repeatability. No clear differences could be interpreted between the condyles. CONCLUSION: Both 2D-IR and 3D-LL perform well in generating repeatable dGEMRIC results, while 3D-VFA results are somewhat inferior. Furthermore, repeatability results in this study are similar to previously published results for healthy subjects. Finally, the positioning of the analyzed images is crucial to generate reliable repeatability results. Copyright 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability of the dGEMRIC (delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage) method in osteoarthritis-prone knee joints for three different T1 quantification techniques: two-dimensional inversion recovery (2D-IR), three-dimensional Look-Locker (3D-LL), and three-dimensional variable flip angle (3D-VFA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine subjects were examined twice, with a 2-week interval, using all three measurement techniques. Four regions of interest were defined in the central medial and lateral femoral cartilage. The repeatability was evaluated for each measurement technique. For the 3D techniques, the variation between different slices was also evaluated. RESULTS: Repeatability expressed by root-mean-square coefficient of variation (CV(RMS)) showed similar results for 2D-IR and 3D-LL (5.4-8.4%). For 3D-VFA CV(RMS) was higher (9.3-15.2%). Intraclass correlation coefficient showed both 2D-IR and 3D-LL reliability to be moderate, while 3D-VFA reliability was low. Inter-slice CV(RMS) and ICC was of the same magnitude as the repeatability. No clear differences could be interpreted between the condyles. CONCLUSION: Both 2D-IR and 3D-LL perform well in generating repeatable dGEMRIC results, while 3D-VFA results are somewhat inferior. Furthermore, repeatability results in this study are similar to previously published results for healthy subjects. Finally, the positioning of the analyzed images is crucial to generate reliable repeatability results. Copyright 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Marcelo Souto Nacif; Evrim B Turkbey; Neville Gai; Saman Nazarian; Rob J van der Geest; Radwa A Noureldin; Christopher T Sibley; Martin Ugander; Songtao Liu; Andrew E Arai; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yun Jiang; Dan Ma; Kathryn E Keenan; Karl F Stupic; Vikas Gulani; Mark A Griswold Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Mikko J Nissi; Lauri J Lehto; Curtis A Corum; Djaudat Idiyatullin; Jutta M Ellermann; Olli H J Gröhn; Miika T Nieminen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Mitchell A Cooper; Thanh D Nguyen; Pascal Spincemaille; Martin R Prince; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 4.668
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