N Sritanyaratana1, A Samsonov2, P Mossahebi3, J J Wilson4, W F Block5, R Kijowski6. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA. Electronic address: nade@cae.wisc.edu. 2. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare quantitative magnetization transfer (qMT) parameters of patellar cartilage measured using cross-relaxation imaging (CRI) in asymptomatic volunteers and patients with osteoarthritis. DESIGN: The study was performed with Institutional Review Board approval and with all subjects signing informed consent. CRI of the knee joint was performed at 3.0T on 20 asymptomatic volunteers and 11 patients with osteoarthritis. The fraction of macromolecular bound protons (f), the exchange rate constant between macromolecular bound protons and free water protons (k), and the T2 relaxation time of macromolecular bound protons (T2(B)) of patellar cartilage were measured. Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare qMT parameters between asymptomatic volunteers and patients with osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Average f, k, and T2(B) of patellar cartilage was 12.46%, 7.22 s(-1), and 6.49 μs respectively for asymptomatic volunteers and 12.80%, 6.13 s(-1), and 6.80 μs respectively for patients with osteoarthritis. There were statistically significant differences between groups of subjects for k (P < 0.01) and T2(B) (P < 0.0001) but not f (P = 0.38) of patellar cartilage. CONCLUSION: Patients with osteoarthritis had significantly lower k and significantly higher T2(B) of patellar cartilage than asymptomatic volunteers which suggests that qMT parameters can detect changes in the macromolecular matrix of degenerative cartilage.
OBJECTIVE: To compare quantitative magnetization transfer (qMT) parameters of patellar cartilage measured using cross-relaxation imaging (CRI) in asymptomatic volunteers and patients with osteoarthritis. DESIGN: The study was performed with Institutional Review Board approval and with all subjects signing informed consent. CRI of the knee joint was performed at 3.0T on 20 asymptomatic volunteers and 11 patients with osteoarthritis. The fraction of macromolecular bound protons (f), the exchange rate constant between macromolecular bound protons and free water protons (k), and the T2 relaxation time of macromolecular bound protons (T2(B)) of patellar cartilage were measured. Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare qMT parameters between asymptomatic volunteers and patients with osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Average f, k, and T2(B) of patellar cartilage was 12.46%, 7.22 s(-1), and 6.49 μs respectively for asymptomatic volunteers and 12.80%, 6.13 s(-1), and 6.80 μs respectively for patients with osteoarthritis. There were statistically significant differences between groups of subjects for k (P < 0.01) and T2(B) (P < 0.0001) but not f (P = 0.38) of patellar cartilage. CONCLUSION:Patients with osteoarthritis had significantly lower k and significantly higher T2(B) of patellar cartilage than asymptomatic volunteers which suggests that qMT parameters can detect changes in the macromolecular matrix of degenerative cartilage.
Authors: Greg J Stanisz; Ewa E Odrobina; Joseph Pun; Michael Escaravage; Simon J Graham; Michael J Bronskill; R Mark Henkelman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Olaf Dietrich; José G Raya; Scott B Reeder; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Scott B Reeder; Charles A McKenzie; Angel R Pineda; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Anja C Brau; Brian A Hargreaves; Garry E Gold; Jean H Brittain Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: S K de Visser; J C Bowden; E Wentrup-Byrne; L Rintoul; T Bostrom; J M Pope; K I Momot Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: J Multanen; E Rauvala; E Lammentausta; R Ojala; I Kiviranta; A Häkkinen; M T Nieminen; A Heinonen Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Ekaterina Brui; Aleksandr Y Efimtcev; Vladimir A Fokin; Remi Fernandez; Anatoliy G Levchuk; Augustin C Ogier; Alexey A Samsonov; Jean P Mattei; Irina V Melchakova; David Bendahan; Anna Andreychenko Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Fang Liu; Julia V Velikina; Walter F Block; Richard Kijowski; Alexey A Samsonov Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Adam G Culvenor; Britt Elin Øiestad; Harvi F Hart; Joshua J Stefanik; Ali Guermazi; Kay M Crossley Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Laura M Horga; Anna C Hirschmann; Johann Henckel; Anastasia Fotiadou; Anna Di Laura; Camilla Torlasco; Andrew D'Silva; Sanjay Sharma; James C Moon; Alister J Hart Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 2.199