Christoph Rehnitz1, Benita Kuni2, Felix Wuennemann1, Dimitrios Chloridis2, Anand Kirwadi3, Iris Burkholder4, Hans-Ulrich Kauczor1, Marc-André Weber1. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK. 4. Department of Nursing and Health, University of Applied Sciences of the Saarland, Saarbruecken, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and T2 mapping in evaluation of type II osteochondral lesions (OCLs) of the talus and define cutoff values for identifying patients with good/poor clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 28 patients (mean age, 42.3 years) underwent T2 mapping and dGEMRIC at least 1.5 years (mean duration, 3.5 years) after microfracture (n = 12) or conservative (n = 16) treatment for type II OCL. Clinical outcomes were considered good with an American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society score ≥80. The T1 /T2 -values and indices of repair tissue (RT; cartilage above the OCL) were compared to those of the adjacent normal cartilage (NC) by region-of-interest analysis. The ability of the two methods to discriminate RT from NC was determined by area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) analysis. The Youden index was maximized for T1 /T2 measures for identifying cutoff values indicative of good/poor clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Repair tissue exhibited lower dGEMRIC values (629.83 vs. 738.51 msec) and higher T2 values (62.07 vs. 40.69 msec) than NC (P < 0.001). T2 mapping exhibited greater AUC than dGEMRIC (0.88 vs. 0.69; P = 0.0398). All T1 measures exhibited higher maximized Youden indices than the corresponding T2 measures. The highest maximized Youden index for T1difference was observed at a cutoff value of 84 msec (sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 83%). CONCLUSION: While T2 mapping is superior to dGEMRIC in discriminating RT, the latter better identifies good/poor clinical outcomes in patients with type II talar OCL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1601-1610.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and T2 mapping in evaluation of type II osteochondral lesions (OCLs) of the talus and define cutoff values for identifying patients with good/poor clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 28 patients (mean age, 42.3 years) underwent T2 mapping and dGEMRIC at least 1.5 years (mean duration, 3.5 years) after microfracture (n = 12) or conservative (n = 16) treatment for type II OCL. Clinical outcomes were considered good with an American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society score ≥80. The T1 /T2 -values and indices of repair tissue (RT; cartilage above the OCL) were compared to those of the adjacent normal cartilage (NC) by region-of-interest analysis. The ability of the two methods to discriminate RT from NC was determined by area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) analysis. The Youden index was maximized for T1 /T2 measures for identifying cutoff values indicative of good/poor clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Repair tissue exhibited lower dGEMRIC values (629.83 vs. 738.51 msec) and higher T2 values (62.07 vs. 40.69 msec) than NC (P < 0.001). T2 mapping exhibited greater AUC than dGEMRIC (0.88 vs. 0.69; P = 0.0398). All T1 measures exhibited higher maximized Youden indices than the corresponding T2 measures. The highest maximized Youden index for T1difference was observed at a cutoff value of 84 msec (sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 83%). CONCLUSION: While T2 mapping is superior to dGEMRIC in discriminating RT, the latter better identifies good/poor clinical outcomes in patients with type II talar OCL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1601-1610.
Authors: Valentina Mori; Lino M Sawicki; Philipp Sewerin; Markus Eichner; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Lisa Oezel; Sebastian Gehrmann; Bernd Bittersohl; Gerald Antoch; Christoph Schleich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Carly A Lockard; Ingrid K Stake; Alex W Brady; Madeleine G DeClercq; Kira K Tanghe; Brenton W Douglass; Erik Nott; Charles P Ho; Thomas O Clanton Journal: Cartilage Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Michael L Francavilla; Suraj D Serai; Timothy G Brandon; David M Biko; Dmitry Khrichenko; Jie C Nguyen; Rui Xiao; Nancy A Chauvin; Liya Gendler; Pamela F Weiss Journal: ACR Open Rheumatol Date: 2021-11-10
Authors: Felix Wuennemann; Laurent Kintzelé; Alexander Braun; Felix Zeifang; Michael W Maier; Iris Burkholder; Marc-André Weber; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Christoph Rehnitz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 4.379