| Literature DB >> 29383528 |
Sander Brinkhof1, Razmara Nizak2, Vitaliy Khlebnikov3, Jeanine J Prompers3, Dennis W J Klomp3, Daniel B F Saris2,4,5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to implement a fast 3D glycosaminoglycan Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer (gagCEST) sequence at 7 T, test stability and reproducibility in cartilage in the knee in healthy volunteers, and evaluate clinical applicability in cartilage repair patients.Entities:
Keywords: Cartilage; Glycosaminoglycans; Knee; Magnetic resonance imaging; Osteoarthritis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29383528 PMCID: PMC5986839 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5277-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Overview of parameters for Bloch-McConnell equation simulations
| Water | GAG | |
|---|---|---|
| T1 (s) | 1.2 | 1* |
| T2 (ms) | 40 | 10 |
| ∆w (ppm) | 0 | 0.9 |
| M0 (%) | - | 0.27 |
| R (Hz) | - | 1000 |
*Fixed in simulation
Fig. 1.(A) The simulated GAG effect size (%) as a function of the number of pulses in the CEST pre-pulse. (B) The simulated 3D plot of GAG effect size (%) as a function of the RF duty cycle (of the CEST pre-pulse) and B1+ field amplitude
Stability assessments of GAG effect at 0.9 ppm in healthy volunteers
| Subject | Age | Gender | Scan | Medial CV (%) | Trochlea CV (%) | Lateral CV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21 | F | 1 | 1.61 | 0.88 | 1.23 |
| 2 | 1.67 | 2.07 | 1.11 | |||
| 2 | 29 | M | 1 | 0.89 | 0.52 | 2.89 |
| 2 | 1.25 | 0.52 | 0.73 | |||
| 3 | 35 | M | 1 | 3.2 | 1.96 | 1.74 |
| 2 | 5.44 | 2.96 | 3.34 | |||
| 4 | 21 | F | 1 | 1.64 | 1.55 | 6.57 |
| 2 | 1.54 | 0.57 | 0.88 | |||
| 5 | 25 | F | 1 | 1.08 | 1.54 | 1.49 |
| 2 | 1.67 | 1.38 | 3.54 | |||
| Mean coefficient of variation: | 2.00 | 1.40 | 2.25 | |||
Fig. 2.An example of the CEST spectrum and its three-pool Lorentzian decomposition. The black line shows the multi-Lorentzian fit of the three pools; acquired data are represented with black dots
Fig. 3.The correlation graphs of three assessed locations (medial condyle, lateral condyle and trochlear groove). ICC medial condyle: 0.87 (p = 0.0049), ICC trochlear groove: 0.063 (p = 0.43) and ICC lateral condyle: 0.97 (p < 0.001). Measurement 1 refers to the amplitude of the GAG fit in the first measurement; measurement 2 refers to the amplitude of the GAG fit in the second measurement
Fig. 4.Bland-Altman plots of GAG effects in the medial and lateral condyle
Fig. 5.The 3D segmented GAG map of articular cartilage in the knee of a patient with an ICRS grade IV defect on the medial side of the knee
Fig. 6.Comparison of the arthroscopic view and gagCEST map. Left upper corner shows the arthroscopic view of the knee of patient 1. The defect (red) and corresponding defect rim (orange) are highlighted in the image on the upper right. The lower left shows the gagCEST map of this patient, where the defect is clearly visualised. The same regions are highlighted again, with the defect in red and the defect rim in orange
Comparison of GAG effect in cartilage repair patients: comparison of cartilage on damaged side of the knee versus cartilage on the healthy side of the knee. Difference between groups is statistically significant (p < 0.05)
| No. | Age (years) | BMI (kg/m2) | ICRS grade | Defect location | Defect size (cm2) | Defect origin | GAG effect healthy condyle | GAG effect defective condyle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 38 | 21.1 | 4 | MFC | 3 | No trauma, gradual increase of pain | 12.0 (5.7 – 21.2) | 5.1 (0.1 – 11.8) |
| 2 | 21 | 22.5 | 4 | LFC | 2 | Distortion trauma | 12.4 (5.0 – 21.6) | 1.3 (0 – 7.5) |
| 3 | 25 | 23.0 | 3 | LFC | 1.5 | Cartilage damage after removal of meniscal lesion | 9.3 (2.2 – 20.1) | 1.8 (0 – 8.8) |
| 4 | 41 | 29.5 | 4 | MFC | 4 | Distortion trauma | 2.6 (0 – 11) | 2.5 (0 – 9.7) |
| 5 | 26 | 22.9 | 4 | LFC | 1.5 | Rotational trauma | 3.7 (0.2 – 10.8) | 1.4 (0 – 7.3) |
MFC = medial femoral condyle; LFC = lateral femoral condyle; GAG effect is expressed as a median and interquartile range