PURPOSE: To compare six new three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance (MR) methods for evaluating knee cartilage at 3.0T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared: fast-spin-echo cube (FSE-Cube), vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction balanced steady-state free precession (VIPR-bSSFP), iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation combined with spoiled gradient echo (IDEAL-SPGR) and gradient echo (IDEAL-GRASS), multiecho in steady-state acquisition (MENSA), and coherent oscillatory state acquisition for manipulation of image contrast (COSMIC). Five-minute sequences were performed twice on 10 healthy volunteers and once on five osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured from the volunteers. Images of the five volunteers and the five OA patients were ranked on tissue contrast, articular surface clarity, reformat quality, and lesion conspicuity. FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP were compared to IDEAL-SPGR for cartilage volume measurements. RESULTS: FSE-Cube had top rankings for lesion conspicuity, overall SNR, and CNR (P < 0.02). VIPR-bSSFP had top rankings in tissue contrast and articular surface clarity. VIPR and FSE-Cube tied for best in reformatting ability. FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP compared favorably to IDEAL-SPGR in accuracy and precision of cartilage volume measurements. CONCLUSION: FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP produce high image quality with accurate volume measurement of knee cartilage. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare six new three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance (MR) methods for evaluating knee cartilage at 3.0T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared: fast-spin-echo cube (FSE-Cube), vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction balanced steady-state free precession (VIPR-bSSFP), iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation combined with spoiled gradient echo (IDEAL-SPGR) and gradient echo (IDEAL-GRASS), multiecho in steady-state acquisition (MENSA), and coherent oscillatory state acquisition for manipulation of image contrast (COSMIC). Five-minute sequences were performed twice on 10 healthy volunteers and once on five osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured from the volunteers. Images of the five volunteers and the five OApatients were ranked on tissue contrast, articular surface clarity, reformat quality, and lesion conspicuity. FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP were compared to IDEAL-SPGR for cartilage volume measurements. RESULTS: FSE-Cube had top rankings for lesion conspicuity, overall SNR, and CNR (P < 0.02). VIPR-bSSFP had top rankings in tissue contrast and articular surface clarity. VIPR and FSE-Cube tied for best in reformatting ability. FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP compared favorably to IDEAL-SPGR in accuracy and precision of cartilage volume measurements. CONCLUSION: FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP produce high image quality with accurate volume measurement of knee cartilage. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: D G Disler; T R McCauley; C G Kelman; M D Fuchs; L M Ratner; C R Wirth; P P Hospodar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: F Eckstein; J Westhoff; H Sittek; K P Maag; M Haubner; S Faber; K H Englmeier; M Reiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Richard Kijowski; Kirkland W Davis; Michael A Woods; Mary J Lindstrom; Arthur A De Smet; Garry E Gold; Reed F Busse Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Brian A Hargreaves; Garry E Gold; Christopher F Beaulieu; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Dwight G Nishimura; John M Pauly Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: F Eckstein; M Schnier; M Haubner; J Priebsch; C Glaser; K H Englmeier; M Reiser Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 4.176
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: Charles Q Li; Weitian Chen; Jarrett K Rosenberg; Philip J Beatty; Richard Kijowski; Brian A Hargreaves; Reed F Busse; Garry E Gold Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Faysal F Altahawi; Kevin J Blount; Nicholas P Morley; Esther Raithel; Imran M Omar Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Habib Al saleh; Larry Hernandez; Kenneth S Lee; Humberto G Rosas; Walter F Block; Richard Kijowski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: G E Gold; F Cicuttini; M D Crema; F Eckstein; A Guermazi; R Kijowski; T M Link; E Maheu; J Martel-Pelletier; C G Miller; J-P Pelletier; C G Peterfy; H G Potter; F W Roemer; D J Hunter Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Pieter Van Dyck; Floris Vanhevel; Filip M Vanhoenacker; Kristien Wouters; David M Grodzki; Jan L Gielen; Paul M Parizel Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2015-04-09