OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cartilage repair and native tissue using a three-dimensional (3D), radial, ultra-short echo time (UTE) (23)Na MR sequence without and with an inversion recovery (IR) preparation pulse for fluid suppression at 7 Tesla (T). METHODS: This study had institutional review board approval. We recruited 11 consecutive patients (41.5 ± 11.8 years) from an orthopaedic surgery practice who had undergone a knee cartilage restoration procedure. The subjects were examined postoperatively (median = 26 weeks) with 7-T MRI using: proton-T2 (TR/TE = 3,000 ms/60 ms); sodium UTE (TR/TE = 100 ms/0.4 ms); fluid-suppressed, sodium UTE adiabatic IR. Cartilage sodium concentrations in repair tissue ([Na(+)](R)), adjacent native cartilage ([Na(+)](N)), and native cartilage within the opposite, non-surgical compartment ([Na(+)](N2)) were calculated using external NaCl phantoms. RESULTS: For conventional sodium imaging, mean [Na(+)](R), [Na(+)](N), [Na(+)](N2) were 177.8 ± 54.1 mM, 170.1 ± 40.7 mM, 172.2 ± 30 mM respectively. Differences in [Na(+)](R) versus [Na(+)](N) (P = 0.59) and [Na(+)](N) versus [Na(+)](N2) (P = 0.89) were not significant. For sodium IR imaging, mean [Na(+)](R), [Na(+)](N), [Na(+)](N2) were 108.9 ± 29.8 mM, 204.6 ± 34.7 mM, 249.9 ± 44.6 mM respectively. Decreases in [Na(+)](R) versus [Na(+)](N) (P = 0.0.0000035) and [Na(+)](N) versus [Na(+)](N2) (P = 0.015) were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Sodium IR imaging at 7 T can suppress the signal from free sodium within synovial fluid. This may allow improved assessment of [Na(+)] within cartilage repair and native tissue. KEY POINTS: • NaIR magnetic resonance imaging can suppress signal from sodium within synovial fluid. • NaIR MRI thus allows assessment of sodium concentration within cartilage tissue alone. • This may facilitate more accurate assessment of repair tissue composition and quality.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cartilage repair and native tissue using a three-dimensional (3D), radial, ultra-short echo time (UTE) (23)Na MR sequence without and with an inversion recovery (IR) preparation pulse for fluid suppression at 7 Tesla (T). METHODS: This study had institutional review board approval. We recruited 11 consecutive patients (41.5 ± 11.8 years) from an orthopaedic surgery practice who had undergone a knee cartilage restoration procedure. The subjects were examined postoperatively (median = 26 weeks) with 7-T MRI using: proton-T2 (TR/TE = 3,000 ms/60 ms); sodium UTE (TR/TE = 100 ms/0.4 ms); fluid-suppressed, sodium UTE adiabatic IR. Cartilagesodium concentrations in repair tissue ([Na(+)](R)), adjacent native cartilage ([Na(+)](N)), and native cartilage within the opposite, non-surgical compartment ([Na(+)](N2)) were calculated using external NaCl phantoms. RESULTS: For conventional sodium imaging, mean [Na(+)](R), [Na(+)](N), [Na(+)](N2) were 177.8 ± 54.1 mM, 170.1 ± 40.7 mM, 172.2 ± 30 mM respectively. Differences in [Na(+)](R) versus [Na(+)](N) (P = 0.59) and [Na(+)](N) versus [Na(+)](N2) (P = 0.89) were not significant. For sodium IR imaging, mean [Na(+)](R), [Na(+)](N), [Na(+)](N2) were 108.9 ± 29.8 mM, 204.6 ± 34.7 mM, 249.9 ± 44.6 mM respectively. Decreases in [Na(+)](R) versus [Na(+)](N) (P = 0.0.0000035) and [Na(+)](N) versus [Na(+)](N2) (P = 0.015) were significant. CONCLUSIONS:Sodium IR imaging at 7 T can suppress the signal from free sodium within synovial fluid. This may allow improved assessment of [Na(+)] within cartilage repair and native tissue. KEY POINTS: • NaIR magnetic resonance imaging can suppress signal from sodium within synovial fluid. • NaIR MRI thus allows assessment of sodium concentration within cartilage tissue alone. • This may facilitate more accurate assessment of repair tissue composition and quality.
Authors: Lawrence M White; Marshall S Sussman; Mark Hurtig; Linda Probyn; George Tomlinson; Rita Kandel Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: X Li; C Benjamin Ma; T M Link; D-D Castillo; G Blumenkrantz; J Lozano; J Carballido-Gamio; M Ries; S Majumdar Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-02-16 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Siegfried Trattnig; Tallal C Mamisch; Goetz H Welsch; Christian Glaser; Pavol Szomolanyi; Simone Gebetsroither; Oliver Stastny; Wilhelm Horger; Steven Millington; Stefan Marlovits Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Gregory Chang; Ding Xia; Orrin Sherman; Eric Strauss; Laith Jazrawi; Michael P Recht; Ravinder R Regatte Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 2.310
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: Štefan Zbýň; Martin O Brix; Vladimir Juras; Stephan E Domayer; Sonja M Walzer; Vladimir Mlynarik; Sebastian Apprich; Kai Buckenmaier; Reinhard Windhager; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 6.016