PURPOSE: To assess motion artifacts in dGEMRIC of finger joints and to evaluate the effectiveness of motion correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 40 subjects (26 patients with finger arthritis and 14 healthy volunteers) dGEMRIC of metacarpophalangeal joint II was performed. Imaging used a dual flip angle approach (TE 3.72 ms, TR 15 ms, flip angles 5° and 26°). Two sets of T1 maps were calculated for dGEMRIC analysis from the imaging data for each subject: one with and one without motion correction. To compare image quality, visual grading analysis and precision of dGEMRIC measurement of both dGEMRIC maps for each case were evaluated. RESULTS: Motion artifacts were present in 82% (33/40) of uncorrected dGEMRIC maps. Motion artifacts were graded as severe or as rendering evaluation impossible in 43% (17/40) of uncorrected dGEMRIC maps. Motion corrected maps showed significantly less motion artifacts (P<0.001) and were graded as evaluable in 97% (39/40) of cases. Precision was significantly higher in motion corrected images (coefficient of variation (CV=.176±.077), compared to uncorrected images (CV .445±.347) (P<.001). Motion corrected dGERMIC was different in volunteers and patients (P=.044), whereas uncorrected dGEMRIC was not (P=.234). CONCLUSION: Motion correction improves image quality, dGEMRIC measurement precision and diagnostic performance in dGEMRIC of finger joints.
PURPOSE: To assess motion artifacts in dGEMRIC of finger joints and to evaluate the effectiveness of motion correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 40 subjects (26 patients with finger arthritis and 14 healthy volunteers) dGEMRIC of metacarpophalangeal joint II was performed. Imaging used a dual flip angle approach (TE 3.72 ms, TR 15 ms, flip angles 5° and 26°). Two sets of T1 maps were calculated for dGEMRIC analysis from the imaging data for each subject: one with and one without motion correction. To compare image quality, visual grading analysis and precision of dGEMRIC measurement of both dGEMRIC maps for each case were evaluated. RESULTS: Motion artifacts were present in 82% (33/40) of uncorrected dGEMRIC maps. Motion artifacts were graded as severe or as rendering evaluation impossible in 43% (17/40) of uncorrected dGEMRIC maps. Motion corrected maps showed significantly less motion artifacts (P<0.001) and were graded as evaluable in 97% (39/40) of cases. Precision was significantly higher in motion corrected images (coefficient of variation (CV=.176±.077), compared to uncorrected images (CV .445±.347) (P<.001). Motion corrected dGERMIC was different in volunteers and patients (P=.044), whereas uncorrected dGEMRIC was not (P=.234). CONCLUSION: Motion correction improves image quality, dGEMRIC measurement precision and diagnostic performance in dGEMRIC of finger joints.
Authors: C Schleich; A Müller-Lutz; P Sewerin; B Ostendorf; C Buchbender; M Schneider; G Antoch; F Miese Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 2.199
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
Authors: Daniel B Abrar; Christoph Schleich; Sven Nebelung; Miriam Frenken; Tim Ullrich; Karl Ludger Radke; Gerald Antoch; Stefan Vordenbäumen; Ralph Brinks; Matthias Schneider; Benedikt Ostendorf; Philipp Sewerin Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Esther E Bron; Jasper van Tiel; Henk Smit; Dirk H J Poot; Wiro J Niessen; Gabriel P Krestin; Harrie Weinans; Edwin H G Oei; Gyula Kotek; Stefan Klein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 5.315