OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of slice-encoding for metal artefact correction (SEMAC) on image quality, findings, and therapy decision in patients with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: Forty-five painful UKAs were examined at 1.5T-MRI (STIR, proton-density(PD)-weighted sequence, each with SEMAC and high-bandwidth). Artefact size, image quality, anatomic depiction, and clinically relevant findings were compared between SEMAC and high-bandwidth (2 readers). In 30 patients, therapy decision was retrospectively assessed by two orthopaedic surgeons without MRI, with high-bandwidth-MRI, and with SEMAC-MRI. RESULTS: SEMAC reduced mean artefact size for STIR (11.8 cm(2) vs. 37.7 cm(2)) and PD (16.8 cm(2) vs. 18.9 cm(2)), p < 0.0005 for both comparisons. SEMAC showed more blurring than high-bandwidth, p < 0.0005. STIR-SEMAC revealed more bone marrow oedema (29 vs. 18 patients, p = 0.001, 30 vs. 13 patients, p < 0.0005, for reader 1 and 2 respectively). PD-SEMAC was worse in detecting meniscal lesions (6 missed, p = 0.031, 9 missed, p = 0.004, by reader 1 and 2 respectively) than PD-high-bandwidth. Revision-surgery was chosen in 12 and 11 patients without MRI (surgeon 1 and 2), with high-bandwidth-MRI in 15 and 14 patients, and with SEMAC-MRI in 19 and 14 patients. CONCLUSIONS: STIR-SEMAC was useful in detecting bone marrow oedema and influenced the orthopaedic surgeons' decisions towards surgery, while PD-SEMAC showed no clinical benefit. KEY POINTS: • Slice-encoding for metal artefact correction (SEMAC) MRI reduces metal-induced artefact size. • STIR SEMAC detects more bone marrow oedema in painful unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. • STIR SEMAC can help the orthopaedic surgeon with decision making. • PD SEMAC suffers from blurring of images, potentially masking relevant meniscal lesions. • PD SEMAC does not improve cartilage lesion detection in the non-operated compartments.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of slice-encoding for metal artefact correction (SEMAC) on image quality, findings, and therapy decision in patients with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: Forty-five painful UKAs were examined at 1.5T-MRI (STIR, proton-density(PD)-weighted sequence, each with SEMAC and high-bandwidth). Artefact size, image quality, anatomic depiction, and clinically relevant findings were compared between SEMAC and high-bandwidth (2 readers). In 30 patients, therapy decision was retrospectively assessed by two orthopaedic surgeons without MRI, with high-bandwidth-MRI, and with SEMAC-MRI. RESULTS:SEMAC reduced mean artefact size for STIR (11.8 cm(2) vs. 37.7 cm(2)) and PD (16.8 cm(2) vs. 18.9 cm(2)), p < 0.0005 for both comparisons. SEMAC showed more blurring than high-bandwidth, p < 0.0005. STIR-SEMAC revealed more bone marrow oedema (29 vs. 18 patients, p = 0.001, 30 vs. 13 patients, p < 0.0005, for reader 1 and 2 respectively). PD-SEMAC was worse in detecting meniscal lesions (6 missed, p = 0.031, 9 missed, p = 0.004, by reader 1 and 2 respectively) than PD-high-bandwidth. Revision-surgery was chosen in 12 and 11 patients without MRI (surgeon 1 and 2), with high-bandwidth-MRI in 15 and 14 patients, and with SEMAC-MRI in 19 and 14 patients. CONCLUSIONS: STIR-SEMAC was useful in detecting bone marrow oedema and influenced the orthopaedic surgeons' decisions towards surgery, while PD-SEMAC showed no clinical benefit. KEY POINTS: • Slice-encoding for metal artefact correction (SEMAC) MRI reduces metal-induced artefact size. • STIR SEMAC detects more bone marrow oedema in painful unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. • STIR SEMAC can help the orthopaedic surgeon with decision making. • PDSEMAC suffers from blurring of images, potentially masking relevant meniscal lesions. • PDSEMAC does not improve cartilage lesion detection in the non-operated compartments.
Authors: Uyen-Sa D T Nguyen; Yuqing Zhang; Yanyan Zhu; Jingbo Niu; Bin Zhang; David T Felson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alberto Aliprandi; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Pietro Randelli; Michele Bandirali; Stefania Tritella; Giovanni Di Leo; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Paul N Baker; Timothy Petheram; Peter J Avery; Paul J Gregg; David J Deehan Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Christina A Chen; Weitian Chen; Stuart B Goodman; Brian A Hargreaves; Kevin M Koch; Wenmaio Lu; Anja C Brau; Christine E Draper; Scott L Delp; Garry E Gold Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: D T Felson; C E Chaisson; C L Hill; S M Totterman; M E Gale; K M Skinner; L Kazis; D R Gale Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-04-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Louise Murphy; Todd A Schwartz; Charles G Helmick; Jordan B Renner; Gail Tudor; Gary Koch; Anca Dragomir; William D Kalsbeek; Gheorghe Luta; Joanne M Jordan Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-09-15
Authors: Cesar de Cesar Netto; Lucas F Fonseca; Benjamin Fritz; Steven E Stern; Esther Raithel; Mathias Nittka; Lew C Schon; Jan Fritz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Laura Jill Kleeblad; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Alissa J Burge; Mark J Amirtharaj; Hollis G Potter; Andrew D Pearle Journal: HSS J Date: 2018-08-23
Authors: Tsuneari Takahashi; Siddharth Thaker; Giovanni Lettieri; Anthony Redmond; Michael R Backhouse; Martin Stone; Hemant Pandit; Philip O'Connor Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.629