Mokhtar Mars1, Mouna Chelli2, Zeineb Tbini1, Fethi Ladeb2, Souha Gharbi1. 1. Tunis University EL Manar, Higher Institute of Medical Technologies of Tunis, Research Laboratory of Biophysics and Medical Technologies, Tunis, Tunisia. 2. Tunis University EL Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Department of Radiology, Kassab Institute of Orthopedics, Ksar Saïd, Tunis, Tunisia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition techniques and calculation methods affect T2 values of knee cartilage at 1.5 tesla and to identify sequences that can be used for high-resolution T2 mapping in short scanning times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was performed on phantom and 29 patients who underwent MRI of the knee joint at 1.5 tesla. The protocol includes T2 mapping sequences based on Single-Echo Spin Echo (SESE), Multi-Echo Spin Echo (MESE), Fast Spin Echo (FSE) and Turbo Gradient Spin Echo (TGSE). The T2 relaxation times were quantified and evaluated using three calculation methods (MapIt, Syngo Offline and mono-exponential fit). signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were measured in all sequences. All statistical analyses were performed using the t-test. RESULTS: The average T2 values in phantom were 41.7 ± 13.8 ms for SESE, 43.2 ± 14.4 ms for MESE, 42.4 ± 14.1 ms for FSE and 44 ± 14.5 ms for TGSE. In the patient study, the mean differences were 6.5 ± 8.2 ms, 7.8 ± 7.6 ms and 8.4 ± 14.2 ms for MESE, FSE and TGSE compared to SESE, respectively; these statistical results were not significantly different (p > 0.05). The comparison between the three calculation methods showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). The t-test showed no significant difference between SNR values for all sequences. CONCLUSION: T2 values depend not only on the sequence type but also on the calculation method. None of the sequences revealed significant differences compared to the SESE reference sequence. TGSE with its short scanning time can be used for high-resolution T2 mapping.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition techniques and calculation methods affect T2 values of knee cartilage at 1.5 tesla and to identify sequences that can be used for high-resolution T2 mapping in short scanning times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was performed on phantom and 29 patients who underwent MRI of the knee joint at 1.5 tesla. The protocol includes T2 mapping sequences based on Single-Echo Spin Echo (SESE), Multi-Echo Spin Echo (MESE), Fast Spin Echo (FSE) and Turbo Gradient Spin Echo (TGSE). The T2 relaxation times were quantified and evaluated using three calculation methods (MapIt, Syngo Offline and mono-exponential fit). signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were measured in all sequences. All statistical analyses were performed using the t-test. RESULTS: The average T2 values in phantom were 41.7 ± 13.8 ms for SESE, 43.2 ± 14.4 ms for MESE, 42.4 ± 14.1 ms for FSE and 44 ± 14.5 ms for TGSE. In the patient study, the mean differences were 6.5 ± 8.2 ms, 7.8 ± 7.6 ms and 8.4 ± 14.2 ms for MESE, FSE and TGSE compared to SESE, respectively; these statistical results were not significantly different (p > 0.05). The comparison between the three calculation methods showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). The t-test showed no significant difference between SNR values for all sequences. CONCLUSION: T2 values depend not only on the sequence type but also on the calculation method. None of the sequences revealed significant differences compared to the SESE reference sequence. TGSE with its short scanning time can be used for high-resolution T2 mapping.
Authors: C Rehnitz; J Kupfer; N A Streich; I Burkholder; B Schmitt; L Lauer; H-U Kauczor; M-A Weber Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Michel D Crema; Frank W Roemer; Monica D Marra; Deborah Burstein; Garry E Gold; Felix Eckstein; Thomas Baum; Timothy J Mosher; John A Carrino; Ali Guermazi Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Catherine M Phan; Thomas M Link; Gabrielle Blumenkrantz; Timothy C Dunn; Michael D Ries; Lynne S Steinbach; Sharmila Majumdar Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-10-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ernesto Staroswiecki; Kristin L Granlund; Marcus T Alley; Garry E Gold; Brian A Hargreaves Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Garry E Gold; Christina A Chen; Seungbum Koo; Brian A Hargreaves; Neal K Bangerter Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Rachel K Surowiec; Erin P Lucas; Eric K Fitzcharles; Benjamin M Petre; Grant J Dornan; J Erik Giphart; Robert F LaPrade; Charles P Ho Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-11-24 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Felix Wuennemann; Laurent Kintzelé; Alexander Braun; Felix Zeifang; Michael W Maier; Iris Burkholder; Marc-André Weber; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Christoph Rehnitz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 4.379