Ya-Jun Ma1,2, Justin West3, Amin Nazaran1,2, Xin Cheng1,4, Heinz Hoenecke3, Jiang Du1, Eric Y Chang5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA. 2. Radiology Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, 3350 La Jolla Village Drive, MC 114, San Diego, CA, 92161, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. 4. Department of Histology & Embryology, Medical College, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China. 5. Radiology Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, 3350 La Jolla Village Drive, MC 114, San Diego, CA, 92161, USA. ericchangmd@gmail.com.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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