Oliver Kraff1, Andrea Lazik-Palm2,3, Rahel Heule4,5, Jens M Theysohn3, Oliver Bieri4,5, Harald H Quick2,6. 1. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University Duisburg-Essen, Kokereiallee 7, Building C84, 45141, Essen, Germany. oliver.kraff@uni-due.de. 2. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University Duisburg-Essen, Kokereiallee 7, Building C84, 45141, Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Division of Radiological Physics, Department of Radiology, University of Basel Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 6. High Field and Hybrid MR Imaging, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of triple-echo steady state (TESS) T2 mapping as an alternative to conventional multi-echo-spin-echo (CPMG) T2 mapping for the quantitative assessment of hip joint cartilage at 7 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of eight healthy volunteers and three patients were included. Reproducibility of both techniques was evaluated in five volunteers in five scans each. T2 relaxation times were measured by manually drawing regions of interest in multiple regions of the hip joint. Data from both methods were compared using Pearson correlation coefficient, intra-class correlation coefficient, and coefficient of repeatability. The overall image quality and presence of artifacts was assessed. RESULTS: Cartilage transplant and surrounding fluid were well depicted by both methods. Compared to CPMG, TESS provided systematically reduced T2 values (43.3 ± 7.3 vs. 19.2 ± 5.5 ms for acetabular cartilage, and 41.4 ± 5.6 vs. 21.7 ± 5.2 ms for femoral cartilage), in line with previously reported values. No correlation between both methods was found. TESS yielded a slightly better reproducibility than CPMG, while CPMG showed pronounced sensitivity to B1 inhomogeneities. CONCLUSION: TESS seems to be an attractive alternative to CPMG for improvements in quantitative hip joint imaging at 7 T, allowing shortening of the total acquisition time paired with insensitivity to B1, while rendering comparable image quality with good repeatability.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of triple-echo steady state (TESS) T2 mapping as an alternative to conventional multi-echo-spin-echo (CPMG) T2 mapping for the quantitative assessment of hip joint cartilage at 7 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of eight healthy volunteers and three patients were included. Reproducibility of both techniques was evaluated in five volunteers in five scans each. T2 relaxation times were measured by manually drawing regions of interest in multiple regions of the hip joint. Data from both methods were compared using Pearson correlation coefficient, intra-class correlation coefficient, and coefficient of repeatability. The overall image quality and presence of artifacts was assessed. RESULTS: Cartilage transplant and surrounding fluid were well depicted by both methods. Compared to CPMG, TESS provided systematically reduced T2 values (43.3 ± 7.3 vs. 19.2 ± 5.5 ms for acetabular cartilage, and 41.4 ± 5.6 vs. 21.7 ± 5.2 ms for femoral cartilage), in line with previously reported values. No correlation between both methods was found. TESS yielded a slightly better reproducibility than CPMG, while CPMG showed pronounced sensitivity to B1 inhomogeneities. CONCLUSION: TESS seems to be an attractive alternative to CPMG for improvements in quantitative hip joint imaging at 7 T, allowing shortening of the total acquisition time paired with insensitivity to B1, while rendering comparable image quality with good repeatability.
Entities:
Keywords:
7 T; Hip joint; Magnetic resonance imaging; T2 relaxometry; Ultra-high field
Authors: G P Liney; A J Knowles; D J Manton; L W Turnbull; S J Blackband; A Horsman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1996 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Gregory Chang; Cem M Deniz; Stephen Honig; Kenneth Egol; Ravinder R Regatte; Yudong Zhu; Daniel K Sodickson; Ryan Brown Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: J M Theysohn; O Kraff; S Orzada; N Theysohn; T Classen; S Landgraeber; M E Ladd; T C Lauenstein Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2013-08-18 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Roland Krug; Christoph Stehling; Douglas A C Kelley; Sharmila Majumdar; Thomas M Link Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Mariska Damen; Maarten van Leeuwen; Andrew Webb; Dennis Klomp; Catalina Arteaga de Castro Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Emily S Mills; Jacob A Becerra; Katie Yensen; Ioanna K Bolia; Edward C Shontz; Kareem J Kebaish; Andrew Dobitsch; Laith K Hasan; Aryan Haratian; Charlton D Ong; Jordan Gross; Frank A Petrigliano; Alexander E Weber Journal: Orthop Res Rev Date: 2022-09-14