BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetization transfer contrast imaging provides indirect information on the concentration of "bound" water protons and their interactions with "free" water molecules. The purpose of this study is to analyze location- and age-dependent changes in the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) of lower extremity nerves. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten younger (20-32 years) and 5 older (50-63 years) healthy volunteers underwent magnetization transfer contrast imaging at 3 Tesla Two 3-dimensional gradient echo sequences with and without an off-resonance saturation pulse (repetition time: 58 milliseconds; echo time: 2.46 milliseconds; band width: 530 Hz/Px; flip angle: α = 7°) were acquired at 3 different locations covering the proximal thigh to the distal lower leg in the group of younger volunteers and at 2 different locations covering the proximal to distal thigh in the group of older volunteers. Sciatic and tibial nerve regions of interest (ROIs) were manually drawn and additional ROIs were placed in predetermined muscles. Magnetization transfer ratios were extracted from respective ROIs and calculated for each individual and location. RESULTS: In young volunteers, mean values of nerve and muscle MTR were not different between the proximal thigh (nerve: 20.34 ± 0.91; muscle: 31.71 ± 0.29), distal thigh (nerve: 19.90 ± 0.98; P = 0.76; muscle: 31.53 ± 0.69; P = 0.87), and lower leg (nerve: 20.82 ± 1.07; P = 0.73; muscle: 32.44 ± 1.11; P = 0.51). An age-dependent decrease of sciatic nerve MTR was observed in the group of older volunteers (16.95 ± 1.2) compared with the group of younger volunteers (20.12 ± 0.65; P = 0.019). Differences in muscle MTR were not significant between older (31.01 ± 0.49) and younger (31.62 ± 0.37; P = 0.20) volunteers. CONCLUSION: The MTR of lower extremity nerves shows no proximal-to-distal gradient in young healthy volunteers but decreases with age. For future studies using MTR in peripheral nerve disorders, these findings suggest that referencing magnetization transfer contrast values in terms of age, but not anatomical nerve location is required.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetization transfer contrast imaging provides indirect information on the concentration of "bound" water protons and their interactions with "free" water molecules. The purpose of this study is to analyze location- and age-dependent changes in the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) of lower extremity nerves. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten younger (20-32 years) and 5 older (50-63 years) healthy volunteers underwent magnetization transfer contrast imaging at 3 Tesla Two 3-dimensional gradient echo sequences with and without an off-resonance saturation pulse (repetition time: 58 milliseconds; echo time: 2.46 milliseconds; band width: 530 Hz/Px; flip angle: α = 7°) were acquired at 3 different locations covering the proximal thigh to the distal lower leg in the group of younger volunteers and at 2 different locations covering the proximal to distal thigh in the group of older volunteers. Sciatic and tibial nerve regions of interest (ROIs) were manually drawn and additional ROIs were placed in predetermined muscles. Magnetization transfer ratios were extracted from respective ROIs and calculated for each individual and location. RESULTS: In young volunteers, mean values of nerve and muscle MTR were not different between the proximal thigh (nerve: 20.34 ± 0.91; muscle: 31.71 ± 0.29), distal thigh (nerve: 19.90 ± 0.98; P = 0.76; muscle: 31.53 ± 0.69; P = 0.87), and lower leg (nerve: 20.82 ± 1.07; P = 0.73; muscle: 32.44 ± 1.11; P = 0.51). An age-dependent decrease of sciatic nerve MTR was observed in the group of older volunteers (16.95 ± 1.2) compared with the group of younger volunteers (20.12 ± 0.65; P = 0.019). Differences in muscle MTR were not significant between older (31.01 ± 0.49) and younger (31.62 ± 0.37; P = 0.20) volunteers. CONCLUSION: The MTR of lower extremity nerves shows no proximal-to-distal gradient in young healthy volunteers but decreases with age. For future studies using MTR in peripheral nerve disorders, these findings suggest that referencing magnetization transfer contrast values in terms of age, but not anatomical nerve location is required.
Authors: Mohsen Afarideh; Kai Jiang; Christopher M Ferguson; John R Woollard; James F Glockner; Lilach O Lerman Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 10.065
Authors: Johann M E Jende; Jan B Groener; Christian Rother; Zoltan Kender; Artur Hahn; Tim Hilgenfeld; Alexander Juerchott; Fabian Preisner; Sabine Heiland; Stefan Kopf; Mirko Pham; Peter Nawroth; Martin Bendszus; Felix T Kurz Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-05-03
Authors: Elisa Giorgetti; Michael Obrecht; Marie Ronco; Moh Panesar; Christian Lambert; Nathalie Accart; Arno Doelemeyer; Mark Nash; Michael Bidinosti; Nicolau Beckmann Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Michael Pridmore; Ryan Castoro; Megan Simmons McCollum; Hakmook Kang; Jun Li; Richard Dortch Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: Scott A Holmes; Steven J Staffa; Anastasia Karapanagou; Natalia Lopez; Victoria Karian; Ronald Borra; David Zurakowski; Alyssa Lebel; David Borsook Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthew C Evans; Charles Wade; David Hohenschurz-Schmidt; Pete Lally; Albert Ugwudike; Kamal Shah; Neal Bangerter; David J Sharp; Andrew S C Rice Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Jennifer Kollmer; Ute Hegenbart; Christoph Kimmich; Ernst Hund; Jan C Purrucker; John M Hayes; Stephen I Lentz; Georges Sam; Johann M E Jende; Stefan O Schönland; Martin Bendszus; Sabine Heiland; Markus Weiler Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 4.511