Literature DB >> 30157099

Ultrashort Time-to-Echo Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3 T for the Detection of Spondylolysis in Cadaveric Spines: Comparison With CT.

Tim Finkenstaedt1, Palanan Siriwanarangsun2, Suraj Achar3, Michael Carl4, Sina Finkenstaedt5, Nirusha Abeydeera6, Christine B Chung6, Won C Bae6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance and confidence of conventional, optimized, and ultrashort time to echo (UTE) magnetic resonance (MR) protocols for detection of simulated lumbar spondylolysis in human cadavers. In addition, we sought to demonstrate the feasibility of the UTE technique in subjects with and without spondylolysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four human lumbar spine specimens with 46 individual pars interarticularis were randomly left intact (n = 26) or received experimental osteotomy (n = 20) using a microsurgical saw to simulate spondylolysis. The specimens were imaged using a computed tomography (CT) scan along with 3 "Tiers" of MR protocols at 3 T: Tier 1, conventional lumbar MR protocol; Tier 2, optimized conventional protocol consisting of a sagittal oblique spoiled gradient recall echo and axial oblique T1 and short tau inversion recovery sequences; and Tier 3, a sagittal UTE MR sequence. Two blinded readers evaluated the images using a 4-point scale (1 = spondylolysis certainly absent, 2 = probably absent, 3 = probably present, 4 = certainly present) at each individual pars. For each imaging protocol, diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, using the surgical osteotomy as the reference) and confidence were assessed and compared using the McNemar test. Furthermore, 2 human subjects were imaged with the conventional and UTE MR protocols to demonstrate feasibility in vivo.
RESULTS: Diagnostic performance was moderate for Tiers 1 and 2, with a moderate sensitivity (0.70 to 0.75) and high (1.00) specificity. In contrast, CT and Tier 3 UTE MR imaging had both high sensitivity (1.00) and specificity (1.00). The sensitivities of CT or Tier 3 were statistically greater than Tier 1 sensitivity (P = 0.041) and neared statistical significance when compared with Tier 2 sensitivity (P = 0.074). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was also significantly greater for CT and Tier 3 (each area = 1.00), compared with the areas for Tier 1 (0.89, P = 0.037) or Tier 2 (0.873, P = 0.024). Diagnostic confidences of CT or Tier 3 were much greater than other Tiers: Both Tiers 1 and 2 had a large percentage of uncertain (>60%, P < 0.001) or wrong interpretations (>10%, P < 0.001), unlike CT or Tier 3 (0% uncertain or wrong interpretations). Preliminary in vivo UTE images clearly depicted intact and fractured pars.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that the detection of pars fractures using a single sagittal UTE MR sequence is superior in performance and confidence to conventional and optimized MR protocols at 3 T, whereas matching those from CT evaluation. Furthermore, we demonstrated the feasibility of in vivo application of the UTE sequence in subjects with and without spondylolysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30157099      PMCID: PMC6269191          DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000506

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  43 in total

Review 1.  Spondylolysis, spondylolisthesis, and associated nerve root entrapment in the lumbosacral spine: MR evaluation.

Authors:  J R Jinkins; J C Matthes; R N Sener; S Venkatappan; R Rauch
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  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

Review 3.  Current concepts in the diagnosis and treatment of spondylolysis in young athletes.

Authors:  Michael D McCleary; Joseph A Congeni
Journal:  Curr Sports Med Rep       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.733

4.  Orientation of lumbar pars defects: implications for radiological detection and surgical management.

Authors:  A Saifuddin; J White; S Tucker; B A Taylor
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1998-03

5.  Depiction of achilles tendon microstructure in vivo using high-resolution 3-dimensional ultrashort echo-time magnetic resonance imaging at 7 T.

Authors:  Misung Han; Peder E Z Larson; Jing Liu; Roland Krug
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 6.016

6.  Differentiation between postoperative scar and recurrent disk herniation: prospective comparison of MR, CT, and contrast-enhanced CT.

Authors:  S Sotiropoulos; N I Chafetz; P Lang; M Winkler; J M Morris; P R Weinstein; H K Genant
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1989 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  Technical Developments: Zero Echo Time Imaging of the Shoulder: Enhanced Osseous Detail by Using MR Imaging.

Authors:  Ryan E Breighner; Yoshimi Endo; Gabrielle P Konin; Lawrence V Gulotta; Matthew F Koff; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Back pain in young athletes. Significant differences from adults in causes and patterns.

Authors:  L J Micheli; R Wood
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  1995-01

Review 9.  Spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis.

Authors:  Serena S Hu; Clifford B Tribus; Mohammad Diab; Alexander J Ghanayem
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2008

10.  Use of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of spondylolysis.

Authors:  Jeremy K Rush; Nelson Astur; Stephanie Scott; Derek M Kelly; Jeffrey R Sawyer; William C Warner
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  2015 Apr-May       Impact factor: 2.324

View more
  6 in total

1.  CT-like images based on T1 spoiled gradient-echo and ultra-short echo time MRI sequences for the assessment of vertebral fractures and degenerative bone changes of the spine.

Authors:  Benedikt J Schwaiger; Charlotte Schneider; Sophia Kronthaler; Florian T Gassert; Christof Böhm; Daniela Pfeiffer; Thomas Baum; Jan S Kirschke; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Marcus R Makowski; Klaus Woertler; Markus Wurm; Alexandra S Gersing
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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

3.  Detailed bone assessment of the sacroiliac joint in a prospective imaging study: comparison between computed tomography, zero echo time, and black bone magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Lucas Wolharn; Roman Guggenberger; Kai Higashigaito; Thomas Sartoretti; Sebastian Winklhofer; Christine B Chung; Tim Finkenstaedt
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 2.128

4.  Ultrashort Time to Echo Magnetic Resonance Evaluation of Calcium Pyrophosphate Crystal Deposition in Human Menisci.

Authors:  Tim Finkenstaedt; Reni Biswas; Nirusha A Abeydeera; Palanan Siriwanarangsun; Robert Healey; Sheronda Statum; Won C Bae; Christine B Chung
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 6.016

5.  High-Contrast Lumbar Spinal Bone Imaging Using a 3D Slab-Selective UTE Sequence.

Authors:  Amir Masoud Afsahi; Alecio F Lombardi; Zhao Wei; Michael Carl; Jiyo Athertya; Koichi Masuda; Mark Wallace; Roland R Lee; Ya-Jun Ma
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 5.555

Review 6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.