Literature DB >> 29396694

Feasibility of using an inversion-recovery ultrashort echo time (UTE) sequence for quantification of glenoid bone loss.

Ya-Jun Ma1,2, Justin West3, Amin Nazaran1,2, Xin Cheng1,4, Heinz Hoenecke3, Jiang Du1, Eric Y Chang5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To utilize the 3D inversion recovery prepared ultrashort echo time with cones readout (IR-UTE-Cones) MRI technique for direct imaging of lamellar bone with comparison to the gold standard of computed tomography (CT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and MRI was performed on 11 shoulder specimens and three patients. Five specimens had imaging performed before and after glenoid fracture (osteotomy). 2D and 3D volume-rendered CT images were reconstructed and conventional T1-weighted and 3D IR-UTE-Cones MRI techniques were performed. Glenoid widths and defects were independently measured by two readers using the circle method. Measurements were compared with those made from 3D CT datasets. Paired-sample Student's t tests and intraclass correlation coefficients were performed. In addition, 2D CT and 3D IR-UTE-Cones MRI datasets were linearly registered, digitally overlaid, and compared in consensus by these two readers.
RESULTS: Compared with the reference standard (3D CT), glenoid bone diameter measurements made on 2D CT and 3D IR-UTE-Cones were not significantly different for either reader, whereas T1-weighted images underestimated the diameter (mean difference of 0.18 cm, p = 0.003 and 0.16 cm, p = 0.022 for readers 1 and 2, respectively). However, mean margin of error for measuring glenoid bone loss was small for all modalities (range, 1.46-3.92%). All measured ICCs were near perfect. Digitally registered 2D CT and 3D IR-UTE-Cones MRI datasets yielded essentially perfect congruity between the two modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: The 3D IR-UTE-Cones MRI technique selectively visualizes lamellar bone, produces similar contrast to 2D CT imaging, and compares favorably to measurements made using 2D and 3D CT.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Glenohumeral instability; Glenoid bone loss; MRI; UTE

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29396694      PMCID: PMC5960612          DOI: 10.1007/s00256-018-2898-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  24 in total

1.  Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.

Authors:  S S Burkhart; J F De Beer
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.772

2.  About the variability of the shape of the glenoid cavity.

Authors:  L F De Wilde; B M Berghs; E Audenaert; G Sys; G O Van Maele; E Barbaix
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2003-09-19       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Qualitative and quantitative ultrashort echo time (UTE) imaging of cortical bone.

Authors:  Jiang Du; Michael Carl; Mark Bydder; Atsushi Takahashi; Christine B Chung; Graeme M Bydder
Journal:  J Magn Reson       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 2.229

4.  Quantification of a glenoid defect with three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Pol E Huijsmans; Pieter S Haen; Martin Kidd; Wouter J Dhert; Victor P M van der Hulst; W Jaap Willems
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  The importance of CT for the pre-operative surgical planning in recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Authors:  Philipp Moroder; Herbert Resch; Silke Schnaitmann; Thomas Hoffelner; Mark Tauber
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2012-11-23       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Comparison of various imaging techniques to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability.

Authors:  Michael A Rerko; Xueliang Pan; Chris Donaldson; Grant L Jones; Julie Y Bishop
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 3.019

7.  3DMR osseous reconstructions of the shoulder using a gradient-echo based two-point Dixon reconstruction: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Soterios Gyftopoulos; Avner Yemin; Thomas Mulholland; Michael Bloom; Pippa Storey; Christian Geppert; Michael P Recht
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Clinically compatible MRI strategies for discriminating bound and pore water in cortical bone.

Authors:  R Adam Horch; Daniel F Gochberg; Jeffry S Nyman; Mark D Does
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 9.  UTE imaging in the musculoskeletal system.

Authors:  Eric Y Chang; Jiang Du; Christine B Chung
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  The importance of the recognition and treatment of glenoid bone loss in an athletic population.

Authors:  Sanjeev Bhatia; Neil S Ghodadra; Anthony A Romeo; Bernard R Bach; Nikhil N Verma; Samantha T Vo; Matthew T Provencher
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.843

View more
  7 in total

1.  Three-Dimensional Zero Echo Time Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography for Glenoid Bone Assessment.

Authors:  Ricardo Andrade Fernandes de Mello; Ya-Jun Ma; Aria Ashir; Saeed Jerban; Heinz Hoenecke; Michael Carl; Jiang Du; Eric Y Chang
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 4.772

2.  T1 measurement of bound water in cortical bone using 3D adiabatic inversion recovery ultrashort echo time (3D IR-UTE) Cones imaging.

Authors:  Tan Guo; Yajun Ma; Saeed Jerban; Hyungseok Jang; Wei Zhao; Eric Y Chang; Min Chen; Graeme M Bydder; Jiang Du
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Evaluation of MR-derived simulated CT-like images and simulated radiographs compared to conventional radiography in patients with shoulder pain: a proof-of-concept study.

Authors:  Georg C Feuerriegel; Felix K Kopp; Daniela Pfeiffer; Jonas Pogorzelski; Markus Wurm; Yannik Leonhardt; Christof Boehm; Sophia Kronthaler; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Jan Neumann; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Marcus R Makowski; Klaus Woertler; Alexandra S Gersing
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Impact of acceleration on bone depiction quality by ultrashort echo time magnetic resonance bone imaging sequences in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.

Authors:  Jonas M Getzmann; Florian A Huber; Dominik Nakhostin; Eva Deininger-Czermak; Paul Schumann; Tim Finkenstaedt; Filippo Del Grande; Roman Guggenberger
Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open       Date:  2022-04-23

5.  Quantitative analysis of repaired rabbit supraspinatus tendons (± channeling) using magnetic resonance imaging at 7 Tesla.

Authors:  Guy Trudel; Samuel Duchesne-Bélanger; Justin Thomas; Gerd Melkus; Greg O Cron; Peder E Z Larson; Mark Schweitzer; Adnan Sheikh; Hakim Louati; Odette Laneuville
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-08

Review 6.  An Update in Qualitative Imaging of Bone Using Ultrashort Echo Time Magnetic Resonance.

Authors:  Saeed Jerban; Douglas G Chang; Yajun Ma; Hyungseok Jang; Eric Y Chang; Jiang Du
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 5.555

Review 7.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three-Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review.

Authors:  Mateusz C Florkow; Koen Willemsen; Vasco V Mascarenhas; Edwin H G Oei; Marijn van Stralen; Peter R Seevinck
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 5.119

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.