Nathan P Skinner1,2, Shekar N Kurpad2, Brian D Schmit3, L Tugan Muftuler2, Matthew D Budde2. 1. Biophysics Graduate Program, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Dept. of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diffusion-weighted imaging is a common experimental tool for evaluating spinal cord injury (SCI), yet it suffers from complications that decrease its clinical effectiveness. The most commonly used technique, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), is often confounded by effects of edema accompanying acute SCI, limiting its sensitivity to the important functional status marker of axonal integrity. The purpose of this study is to introduce a novel diffusion-acquisition method with the goal of overcoming these limitations. METHODS: A double diffusion encoding (DDE) pulse sequence was implemented with a diffusion-weighted filter orthogonal to the spinal cord for suppressing nonneural signals prior to diffusion weighting parallel to the cord. A point-resolved spectroscopy readout (DDE-PRESS) was used for improved sensitivity and compared with DTI in a rat model of SCI with varying injury severities. RESULTS: The DDE-PRESS parameter, restricted fraction, showed a strong relationship with injury severity (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.67). Although the whole-cord averaged DTI parameter values exhibited only minor injury relationships, a weighted region of interest (ROI) based DTI analysis improved sensitivity to injury (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: In a rat model of SCI, DDE-PRESS demonstrated high sensitivity to injury with substantial decreases in acquisition time and data processing. This method shows promise for application in rapid evaluation of SCI severity. Magn Reson Med 77:1639-1649, 2017.
PURPOSE: Diffusion-weighted imaging is a common experimental tool for evaluating spinal cord injury (SCI), yet it suffers from complications that decrease its clinical effectiveness. The most commonly used technique, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), is often confounded by effects of edema accompanying acute SCI, limiting its sensitivity to the important functional status marker of axonal integrity. The purpose of this study is to introduce a novel diffusion-acquisition method with the goal of overcoming these limitations. METHODS: A double diffusion encoding (DDE) pulse sequence was implemented with a diffusion-weighted filter orthogonal to the spinal cord for suppressing nonneural signals prior to diffusion weighting parallel to the cord. A point-resolved spectroscopy readout (DDE-PRESS) was used for improved sensitivity and compared with DTI in a rat model of SCI with varying injury severities. RESULTS: The DDE-PRESS parameter, restricted fraction, showed a strong relationship with injury severity (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.67). Although the whole-cord averaged DTI parameter values exhibited only minor injury relationships, a weighted region of interest (ROI) based DTI analysis improved sensitivity to injury (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: In a rat model of SCI, DDE-PRESS demonstrated high sensitivity to injury with substantial decreases in acquisition time and data processing. This method shows promise for application in rapid evaluation of SCI severity. Magn Reson Med 77:1639-1649, 2017.
Authors: Jefferson R Wilson; Robert G Grossman; Ralph F Frankowski; Alexander Kiss; Aileen M Davis; Abhaya V Kulkarni; James S Harrop; Bizhan Aarabi; Alexander Vaccaro; Charles H Tator; Marcel Dvorak; Christopher I Shaffrey; Susan Harkema; James D Guest; Michael G Fehlings Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kurt G Schilling; Samantha By; Haley R Feiler; Bailey A Box; Kristin P O'Grady; Atlee Witt; Bennett A Landman; Seth A Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Brian Hansen; Ahmad R Khan; Noam Shemesh; Torben E Lund; Ryan Sangill; Simon F Eskildsen; Leif Østergaard; Sune N Jespersen Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Matthew J Muelbl; Breanna L Glaeser; Alok S Shah; Rachel A Chiariello; Natalie N Nawarawong; Brian D Stemper; Matthew D Budde; Christopher M Olsen Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Dan Benjamini; Diego Iacono; Michal E Komlosh; Daniel P Perl; David L Brody; Peter J Basser Journal: Brain Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Seongtaek Lee; Natasha Wilkins; Brian D Schmit; Shekar N Kurpad; Matthew D Budde Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 2.546