OBJECTIVE: To compare delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and delayed quantitative computed tomography (CT) arthrography (dQCTA) to each other, and their association to arthroscopy. Additionally, the relationship between dGEMRIC with intravenous (dGEMRIC(IV)) and intra-articular contrast agent administration (dGEMRIC(IA)) was determined. DESIGN: Eleven patients with knee pain were scanned at 3 T MRI and 64-slice CT before arthroscopy. dQCTA was performed at 5 and 45 min after intra-articular injection of ioxaglate. Both dGEMRIC(IV) and dGEMRIC(IA) were performed at 90 min after gadopentetate injection. dGEMRIC indices and change in relaxation rates (ΔR(1)) were separately calculated for dGEMRIC(IV) and dGEMRIC(IA). dGEMRIC and dQCTA parameters were calculated for predetermined sites at the knee joint that were International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) graded in arthroscopy. RESULTS: dQCTA normalized with the contrast agent concentration in synovial fluid (SF) and dGEMRIC(IV) correlated significantly, whereas dGEMRIC(IA) correlated with the normalized dQCTA only when dGEMRIC(IA) was also normalized with the contrast agent concentration in SF. Correlation was strongest between normalized dQCTA at 45 min and ΔR(1,IV) (r(s) = 0.72 [95% CI 0.56-0.83], n = 49, P < 0.01) and ΔR(1,IA) normalized with ΔR(1) in SF (r(s) = 0.70 [0.53-0.82], n = 52, P < 0.01). Neither dGEMRIC nor dQCTA correlated with arthroscopic grading. dGEMRIC(IV) and non-normalized dGEMRIC(IA) were not related while ΔR(1,IV) correlated with normalized ΔR(1,IA) (r(s) = 0.52 [0.28-0.70], n = 50, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that dQCTA is in best agreement with dGEMRIC(IV) at 45 min after CT contrast agent injection. dQCTA and dGEMRIC were not related to arthroscopy, probably because the remaining cartilage is analysed in dGEMRIC and dQCTA, whereas in arthroscopy the absence of cartilage defines the grading. The findings indicate the importance to take into account the contrast agent concentration in SF in dQCTA and dGEMRIC(IA).
OBJECTIVE: To compare delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and delayed quantitative computed tomography (CT) arthrography (dQCTA) to each other, and their association to arthroscopy. Additionally, the relationship between dGEMRIC with intravenous (dGEMRIC(IV)) and intra-articular contrast agent administration (dGEMRIC(IA)) was determined. DESIGN: Eleven patients with knee pain were scanned at 3 T MRI and 64-slice CT before arthroscopy. dQCTA was performed at 5 and 45 min after intra-articular injection of ioxaglate. Both dGEMRIC(IV) and dGEMRIC(IA) were performed at 90 min after gadopentetate injection. dGEMRIC indices and change in relaxation rates (ΔR(1)) were separately calculated for dGEMRIC(IV) and dGEMRIC(IA). dGEMRIC and dQCTA parameters were calculated for predetermined sites at the knee joint that were International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) graded in arthroscopy. RESULTS: dQCTA normalized with the contrast agent concentration in synovial fluid (SF) and dGEMRIC(IV) correlated significantly, whereas dGEMRIC(IA) correlated with the normalized dQCTA only when dGEMRIC(IA) was also normalized with the contrast agent concentration in SF. Correlation was strongest between normalized dQCTA at 45 min and ΔR(1,IV) (r(s) = 0.72 [95% CI 0.56-0.83], n = 49, P < 0.01) and ΔR(1,IA) normalized with ΔR(1) in SF (r(s) = 0.70 [0.53-0.82], n = 52, P < 0.01). Neither dGEMRIC nor dQCTA correlated with arthroscopic grading. dGEMRIC(IV) and non-normalized dGEMRIC(IA) were not related while ΔR(1,IV) correlated with normalized ΔR(1,IA) (r(s) = 0.52 [0.28-0.70], n = 50, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that dQCTA is in best agreement with dGEMRIC(IV) at 45 min after CT contrast agent injection. dQCTA and dGEMRIC were not related to arthroscopy, probably because the remaining cartilage is analysed in dGEMRIC and dQCTA, whereas in arthroscopy the absence of cartilage defines the grading. The findings indicate the importance to take into account the contrast agent concentration in SF in dQCTA and dGEMRIC(IA).
Authors: Victor Casula; Jukka Hirvasniemi; Petri Lehenkari; Risto Ojala; Marianne Haapea; Simo Saarakkala; Eveliina Lammentausta; Miika T Nieminen Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Kishore Rajendran; Naveen S Murthy; Matthew A Frick; Shengzhen Tao; Mark D Unger; Katherine T LaVallee; Nicholas B Larson; Shuai Leng; Timothy P Maus; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 10.065
Authors: Kira D Novakofski; Sarah L Pownder; Matthew F Koff; Rebecca M Williams; Hollis G Potter; Lisa A Fortier Journal: Cartilage Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.634