| Literature DB >> 26772813 |
John K Sutherland1, Taiki Nozaki2, Yasuhito Kaneko3, Hon J Yu4, Gregory Rafijah5, David Hitt6, Hiroshi Yoshioka7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our study was performed to evaluate the image quality of 3 T MR wrist arthrograms with attention to ulnar wrist structures, comparing image quality of isotropic 3D proton density fat suppressed turbo spin echo (PDFS TSE) sequence versus standard 2D 3 T sequences as well as comparison with 1.5 T MR arthrograms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26772813 PMCID: PMC4715345 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-0890-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Imaging parameters of 3 T MR arthrogram
| Mode | 3D | 2D | 2D | 2D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sequence | Cor PD | Cor T1 | Cor PD | Cor PD |
| Fat saturation | SPIR | SPIR | SPIR | None |
| Image matrix | 200x200 | 200x198, 240x168 | 268x250 | 392x284, 296x234 |
| Slices | 151 | 20–22 | 20 | 20 |
| FOV (mm) | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 0.35 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Slicegap (mm) | 0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| TE (ms) | 28.3 | 20 | 27 | 27–30 |
| TR (ms) | 1400 | 600 | 3499–4083 | 3181–3500 |
| BW (Hz/pixel) | 179–417 | 169–179 | 184–207 | 184–207 |
| Echo train length | 70–88 | 3 | 13 | 13 |
| NEX | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Parallel imaging | SENSE | SENSE | SENSE | SENSE |
| Acquisition time (min) | 5–5.7 | 3.5 | 6 | 2.2–3.8 |
Imaging parameters of 1.5 T MR arthrogram
| Mode | 2D | 2D | 2D |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sequence | Cor T1 | Cor T1 FS | Cor SPGR MEDIC |
| Fat saturation | None | Yes | None |
| Image matrix | 256 x 256 | 256 x 256 | 256 x 256 |
| Number of slices | 12–15 | 11–17 | 12–14 |
| FOV (mm) | 80–120 | 75–120 | 80–120 |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Slicegap (mm) | 0.27–0.6 | 0.27–0.6 | 0.27 |
| TE (ms) | 15–24 | 8–15 | 22 |
| TR (ms) | 480–681 | 400–550 | 719 |
| TI | N/A | N/A | 130 |
| Flip angle | N/A | N/A | 30 |
| BW (Hz/pixel) | 65–140 | 80–140 | 195 |
| Echo train length | 1–3 | 1–3 | 1 |
| NEX | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Fig. 13 T 3D PDFS image with marks indicating region of interest (ROI) measurements used in quantitative analysis. Average signal intensity of the contents of the ellipse was measured (R-radius, U-ulna, *-TFCC disc, ♦-prestyloid recess)
Mean scores for qualitative analysis of MR arthrogram of the wrist
| Contrast leak | Prestyloid recess | Triangular ligament | Remaining TFCC | UCL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 T MRI | 2D FST1 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 3.3 |
| 2D FSPD | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 3.4 | |
| Isotropic 3D FSPD | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.8 | |
| 2D PD | ー | ー | ー | ー | 3.6 | |
| 1.5 T MRI | T1 or FST1 or MEDIC | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 2.2 |
1.5 T vs 3 T: for contrast leak, all p < 0.001; for prestyloid recess, 1.5 T vs 3D (p < 0.001), 1.5 T vs FST1 (p = 0.003), 1.5 T vs FSPD (p = 0.003); for triangular ligament, 1.5 T vs 3D (p < 0.001), 1.5 T vs FST1 (p = 0.001), 1.5 T vs FSPD (p = 0.002); for remaining TFCC, all p < 0.001; for UCL, 1.5 T vs FST1 (p = 0.001), others p < 0.001
Among 3 T sequences: 3D vs FST1 (p = 0.047), 3D vs FSPD (p = 0.026) regarding evaluation of triangular ligament
Fig. 2Selected images from 3 T MR arthrogram at the same slice. Bottom right blue arrow shows styloid attachment of TFCC, not identified on other sequences due to image plane and slice thickness. Green line on axial 3D PDFS MPR image indicates direction of oblique coronal plane. (R-radius, U-ulna, L-lunate, T-triquetrum)
Fig. 3Images from 3 T study. Top images are showing that at the level of the disc of TFCC, the ulnar styloid is out of plane. Middle images show ulnar styloid with TFCC disc out of plane. Bottom images: axial, left, from which oblique multi-planar reconstruction (MPR), right, was made (with green line in bottom left image indicating direction of oblique coronal plane). Blue arrow showing wavy fibers and focal defect compatible with partial tear of the distal lamina of the triangular ligament, which is not seen with standard coronal imaging due to orientation of the ligament and slice selection. (R-radius, U-ulna, S-scaphoid, L-lunate, T-triquetrum, <−extensor carpi ulnaris in middle images)
Evaluation of contrast leak
| 3 T | Contrast leak | Major (M) or minor (m) | 1.5 T | Contrast leak | Major (M) or minor (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | m | 1 | 2 | m |
| 2 | 3 | m | 2 | 3 | M |
| 3 | 0 | N/A | 3 | 0 | N/A |
| 4 | 3 | M | 4 | 0 | N/A |
| 5 | 3 | M | 5 | 0 | N/A |
| 6 | 3 | m | 6 | 0 | N/A |
| 7 | 3 | M | 7 | 2 | m |
| 8 | 3 | m | 8 | 2 | m |
| 9 | 3 | m | 9 | 0 | N/A |
| 10 | 3 | M | 10 | 3 | m |
| 11 | 3 | m | 11 | 1 | m |
| 12 | 3 | M | |||
| 13 | 0 | N/A | |||
| Contrast Leak: | 14 | 2 | m | ||
| 3: definite | 15 | 3 | m | ||
| 2: probable | 16 | 3 | m | ||
| 1: possible | 17 | 3 | M | ||
| 0: no leak | 18 | 3 | M |
Major leak (M): contrast leakage outside joint capsule with signal intensity equal to that of injected contrast
Minor leak (m): contrast leakage with signal intensity less than injected contrast signal intensity
Inter-rater agreement (quantitative and qualitative analysis)
| Percentage of inter-rater (R1-R2) agreement(%) exact/within 1 point | Cohen’s kappa value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 T-MRI | 1.5 T-MRI | ||||||
| 2D FST1 | 2D FSPD | Isotropic 3D FSPD | 2D PD | T1 or FST1 or MEDIC | 3 T-MRI | 1.5 T-MRI | |
| Contrast leak | 36.4/100 | 54.5/100 | 100/100 | N/A | 72.2/100 | 1.00 | 0.89 |
| Prestyloid recess | 36.4/100 | 90.9/100 | 90/100 | N/A | 77.8/100 | 1.00 | 0.68 |
| Triangular ligament | 45.5/90.9 | 45.5/90.9 | 90/100 | N/A | 38.9/100 | 0.86 | 0.81 |
| Remaining TFCC | 45.5/90.9 | 63.6/90.9 | 80/100 | N/A | 61.1/94.4 | 0.86 | 0.80 |
| UCL | 54.5/90.9 | 63.6/90.9 | 70/100 | 72.7/100 | 55.6/94.4 | 0.83 | 0.71 |
Quantitative analysis of high-resolution MR arthrogram at 3 T
| 2D FST1 (mean ± SD) | 2D FSPD | Isotropic 3D FSPD | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative SI | Fluid | 106.59 | ± | 104.16 | 49.56 | ± | 25.87 | 75.93 | ± | 67.01 |
| Bone | 6.17 | ± | 8.57 | 7.61 | ± | 6.75 | 4.94 | ± | 3.98 | |
| TFCC | 2.88 | ± | 3.94 | 5.39 | ± | 6.58 | 4.54 | ± | 3.92 | |
| Fat | 11.36 | ± | 9.42 | 10.18 | ± | 5.06 | 9.03 | ± | 7.28 | |
| Relative contrast | Fluid-bone |
|
|
| 25.80 | ± | 10.45 |
|
|
|
| Fluid-TFCC | 42.52 | ± | 21.65 | 39.19 | ± | 21.21 | 55.39 | ± | 48.94 | |
| Fluid-fat |
|
|
| 24.59 | ± | 12.63 |
|
|
| |
Bolded are statistically significant in relation to 2D FSPD
Fluid-bone: FST1 vs FSPD, p = 0.037 and 3D vs FSPD, p = 0.005
Fluid-fat: FST1 vs FSPD, p = 0.022 and 3D vs FSPD, p = 0.007