PURPOSE: To investigate the robustness of four fitting methods for bi-component effective spin-spin T2 (T2*) relaxation time analysis of human patellar tendon. METHODS: A three-dimensional (3D) cone ultra-short echo-time (UTE) sequence was performed on the knees of ten healthy volunteers at 3.0T. Four fitting methods incorporating either Gaussian or Rician noise distribution were used for voxel-by-voxel bi-component T2* analysis of the patellar tendon. The T2* for the short relaxing (T**,s ) and long relaxing (T*2,l ) water components and the fraction of the short relaxing water component (fs ) were measured, and different fitting methods were compared using Friedman's and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. A numerical simulation study was also performed to predict the accuracy and precision of bi-component T2* parameter estimation in tendon at different signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) levels. RESULTS: The average T*2,s , T*2,l , fs of human patellar tendon were 1.5ms, 30ms, and 80% respectively. Incorporating different noise models and fitting methods influenced the measured bi-component T2* parameters. Fitting methods incorporating Rician noise were superior to traditional fitting methods for bi-component T2* analysis especially at lower SNR. fs and T*2,s were less sensitive than T*2,1 to noise at even moderate and low SNR. The result of the in-vivo bi-component T2* analysis of tendon agreed well with numerical simulations. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the use of a 3D cone UTE sequence to perform in vivo voxel-by-voxel bi-component T2* analysis of human patellar tendon. Incorporating Rician noise was useful for improving bi-component T2* analysis especially at lower SNR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
PURPOSE: To investigate the robustness of four fitting methods for bi-component effective spin-spin T2 (T2*) relaxation time analysis of human patellar tendon. METHODS: A three-dimensional (3D) cone ultra-short echo-time (UTE) sequence was performed on the knees of ten healthy volunteers at 3.0T. Four fitting methods incorporating either Gaussian or Rician noise distribution were used for voxel-by-voxel bi-component T2* analysis of the patellar tendon. The T2* for the short relaxing (T**,s ) and long relaxing (T*2,l ) water components and the fraction of the short relaxing water component (fs ) were measured, and different fitting methods were compared using Friedman's and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. A numerical simulation study was also performed to predict the accuracy and precision of bi-component T2* parameter estimation in tendon at different signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) levels. RESULTS: The average T*2,s , T*2,l , fs of human patellar tendon were 1.5ms, 30ms, and 80% respectively. Incorporating different noise models and fitting methods influenced the measured bi-component T2* parameters. Fitting methods incorporating Rician noise were superior to traditional fitting methods for bi-component T2* analysis especially at lower SNR. fs and T*2,s were less sensitive than T*2,1 to noise at even moderate and low SNR. The result of the in-vivo bi-component T2* analysis of tendon agreed well with numerical simulations. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the use of a 3D cone UTE sequence to perform in vivo voxel-by-voxel bi-component T2* analysis of human patellar tendon. Incorporating Rician noise was useful for improving bi-component T2* analysis especially at lower SNR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Authors: Fang Liu; Rajeev Chaudhary; Samuel A Hurley; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Andrew L Alexander; Alexey Samsonov; Walter F Block; Richard Kijowski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: David A Reiter; Remigio A Roque; Ping-Chang Lin; Stephen B Doty; Nancy Pleshko; Richard G Spencer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Vladimir Juras; Sebastian Apprich; Štefan Zbýň; Lukas Zak; Xeni Deligianni; Pavol Szomolanyi; Oliver Bieri; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Peder E Z Larson; Misung Han; Roland Krug; Angela Jakary; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel B Vigneron; Roland G Henry; Graeme McKinnon; Douglas A C Kelley Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Vladimir Juras; Stefan Zbyn; Christina Pressl; Ladislav Valkovic; Pavol Szomolanyi; Ivan Frollo; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Sandra J Shultz; Randy J Schmitz; Kenneth L Cameron; Kevin R Ford; Dustin R Grooms; Lindsey K Lepley; Gregory D Myer; Brian Pietrosimone Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Hyungseok Jang; Alan B McMillan; Yajun Ma; Saeed Jerban; Eric Y Chang; Jiang Du; Richard Kijowski Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Ya-Jun Ma; Wei Zhao; Lidi Wan; Tan Guo; Adam Searleman; Hyungseok Jang; Eric Y Chang; Jiang Du Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Sarah L Pownder; Kei Hayashi; Bin Q Lin; Kathleen N Meyers; Brian G Caserto; Ryan E Breighner; Hollis G Potter; Matthew F Koff Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-04