T Aoki1, A Watanabe, N Nitta, T Numano, M Fukushi, M Niitsu. 1. Department of Radiological Science, Graduate School of Human Health Science, Tokyo Metropolitan University, 7-2-10 Higashiogu, Arakawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan. aoki-takako@hs.tmu.ac.jp
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Quantitative MR imaging techniques of degenerative cartilage have been reported as useful indicators of degenerative changes in cartilage extracellular matrix, which consists of proteoglycans, collagen, non-collagenous proteins, and water. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping of cartilage has been shown to correlate mainly with the water content of the cartilage. As the water content of the cartilage in turn correlates with its viscoelasticity, which directly affects the mechanical strength of articular cartilage, ADC can serve as a potentially useful indicator of the mechanical strength of cartilage. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between ADC and viscoelasticity as measured by indentation testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fresh porcine knee joints (n = 20, age 6 months) were obtained from a local abattoir. ADC of porcine knee cartilage was measured using a 3-Tesla MRI. Indentation testing was performed on an electromechanical precision-controlled system, and viscosity coefficient and relaxation time were measured as additional indicators of the viscoelasticity of cartilage. The relationship between ADC and viscosity coefficient as well as that between ADC and relaxation time were assessed. RESULTS: ADC was correlated with relaxation time and viscosity coefficient (R(2) = 0.75 and 0.69, respectively, p < 0.01). The mean relaxation time values in the weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing regions were 0.61 ± 0.17 ms and 0.14 ± 0.08 ms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a moderate correlation between ADC and viscoelasticity in the superficial articular cartilage. Both molecular diffusion and viscoelasticity were higher in weight bearing than non-weight-bearing articular cartilage areas.
OBJECTIVE: Quantitative MR imaging techniques of degenerative cartilage have been reported as useful indicators of degenerative changes in cartilage extracellular matrix, which consists of proteoglycans, collagen, non-collagenous proteins, and water. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping of cartilage has been shown to correlate mainly with the water content of the cartilage. As the water content of the cartilage in turn correlates with its viscoelasticity, which directly affects the mechanical strength of articular cartilage, ADC can serve as a potentially useful indicator of the mechanical strength of cartilage. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between ADC and viscoelasticity as measured by indentation testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fresh porcine knee joints (n = 20, age 6 months) were obtained from a local abattoir. ADC of porcine knee cartilage was measured using a 3-Tesla MRI. Indentation testing was performed on an electromechanical precision-controlled system, and viscosity coefficient and relaxation time were measured as additional indicators of the viscoelasticity of cartilage. The relationship between ADC and viscosity coefficient as well as that between ADC and relaxation time were assessed. RESULTS: ADC was correlated with relaxation time and viscosity coefficient (R(2) = 0.75 and 0.69, respectively, p < 0.01). The mean relaxation time values in the weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing regions were 0.61 ± 0.17 ms and 0.14 ± 0.08 ms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a moderate correlation between ADC and viscoelasticity in the superficial articular cartilage. Both molecular diffusion and viscoelasticity were higher in weight bearing than non-weight-bearing articular cartilage areas.
Authors: Andrew J Wheaton; Francis L Casey; Alexander J Gougoutas; George R Dodge; Arijitt Borthakur; Jess H Lonner; H Ralph Schumacher; Ravinder Reddy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: H E Smith; T J Mosher; B J Dardzinski; B G Collins; C M Collins; Q X Yang; V J Schmithorst; M B Smith Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M T Nieminen; J Töyräs; J Rieppo; J M Hakumäki; J Silvennoinen; H J Helminen; J S Jurvelin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Douglas W Goodwin; Youssef Zaim Wadghiri; Haoqin Zhu; Christopher J Vinton; Eric D Smith; Jeff F Dunn Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jennifer S Wayne; Kenneth A Kraft; Kelly J Shields; Chang Yin; John R Owen; David G Disler Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Uran Ferizi; Ignacio Rossi; Youjin Lee; Matin Lendhey; Jason Teplensky; Oran D Kennedy; Thorsten Kirsch; Jenny Bencardino; José G Raya Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 3.737