Hee J Park1, So Y Lee1, Myung H Rho1, Eun C Chung1, Jin H Ahn2, Jai H Park2, In S Lee3. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of two different imaging methods, three-point Dixon (mDixon) and fast spin-echo (FSE) T2 weighted image (T2WI) [and fat suppression (FS) T2WI], and to assess the utility of mDixon for the imaging of knee joint pathology. METHODS: This retrospective study included 66 patients who underwent both mDixon and FSE T2WI (and FS T2WI) of the knee joint. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the two sequences at the articular cartilage and ligament were measured. Two radiologists independently evaluated the anatomic identification score and diagnostic performances of the two sequences. RESULTS: The mean SNRs and CNRs of the patellar cartilage, femoral cartilage and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) were significantly higher on T2WI and FS T2WI than on mDixon imaging, with the exception of the mean SNR of ACL on in-phase images. Most of the anatomic identification scores did not show significant differences, except for inferiorities of the in-phase mDixon in the evaluation of the cruciate ligament. There were no significant differences in sensitivity, specificity and accuracy between mDixon and T2WI regarding diagnostic performance. CONCLUSION: mDixon images have equivalent anatomic identification ability with the exception of cruciate ligament delineation on in-phase images and have a diagnostic performance comparable with that of FSE T2WI for meniscal, cartilage and ligament injuries of the knee joint. There would be a net saving in time, if mDixon was the only sequence used. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The mDixon images have equivalent anatomic identification abilities, with the exception of cruciate ligament delineation on in-phase images and have a diagnostic performance comparable with that of FSE T2WI for meniscal, cartilage and ligament injuries of the knee joint.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of two different imaging methods, three-point Dixon (mDixon) and fast spin-echo (FSE) T2 weighted image (T2WI) [and fat suppression (FS) T2WI], and to assess the utility of mDixon for the imaging of knee joint pathology. METHODS: This retrospective study included 66 patients who underwent both mDixon and FSE T2WI (and FS T2WI) of the knee joint. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the two sequences at the articular cartilage and ligament were measured. Two radiologists independently evaluated the anatomic identification score and diagnostic performances of the two sequences. RESULTS: The mean SNRs and CNRs of the patellar cartilage, femoral cartilage and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) were significantly higher on T2WI and FS T2WI than on mDixon imaging, with the exception of the mean SNR of ACL on in-phase images. Most of the anatomic identification scores did not show significant differences, except for inferiorities of the in-phase mDixon in the evaluation of the cruciate ligament. There were no significant differences in sensitivity, specificity and accuracy between mDixon and T2WI regarding diagnostic performance. CONCLUSION: mDixon images have equivalent anatomic identification ability with the exception of cruciate ligament delineation on in-phase images and have a diagnostic performance comparable with that of FSE T2WI for meniscal, cartilage and ligament injuries of the knee joint. There would be a net saving in time, if mDixon was the only sequence used. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The mDixon images have equivalent anatomic identification abilities, with the exception of cruciate ligament delineation on in-phase images and have a diagnostic performance comparable with that of FSE T2WI for meniscal, cartilage and ligament injuries of the knee joint.
Authors: Jingfei Ma; Jong Bum Son; James A Bankson; R Jason Stafford; Haesun Choi; Dustin Ragan Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-11-28 Impact factor: 2.546
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: Filippo Del Grande; Francesco Santini; Daniel A Herzka; Michael R Aro; Cooper W Dean; Garry E Gold; John A Carrino Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: S Brandão; D Seixas; M Ayres-Basto; S Castro; J Neto; C Martins; J C Ferreira; F Parada Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Bamidele F Kammen; Eric M Padua; S Pinar Karakas; R Ward Hagar; Dave M Hitt; Nirav K Pandya; Taylor Chung Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2019-02-06
Authors: Thomas Kirchgesner; Maria Stoenoiu; Patrick Durez; Nicolas Michoux; Bruno Vande Berg Journal: J Belg Soc Radiol Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 1.894