| Literature DB >> 30763375 |
Julia Herzen1, Dimitrios C Karampinos2, Peter Foehr3, Lorenz Birnbacher1, Manuel Viermetz1, Rainer Burgkart3, Thomas Baum4, Fabian Lohoefer2, Moritz Wildgruber2,5, Franz Schilling6, Marian Willner1,2, Mathias Marschner1, Peter B Noël2, Ernst J Rummeny2, Franz Pfeiffer1,2,7, Pia M Jungmann2,8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was, to demonstrate the feasibility of high-resolution grating-based X-ray phase-contrast computed tomography (PCCT) for quantitative assessment of cartilage.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30763375 PMCID: PMC6375589 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Principle of biomechanical creep indentation test.
Cartilage stiffness was determined using a custom-made micro-indenter (A) and specimens were measured in a 4-DoF adjustable chamber filled with PBS (B), necessary to align the cartilage surface perpendicular to the indentation axis. The instantaneous stiffness response, indentation depth and recovery potential (backswelling) was measured during the loading ramp of the third creep cycle from the force (C) and the displacement (D) channels.
Fig 2Sketch illustrating the setup of the X-ray phase contrast imaging system.
A rotating anode X-ray tube and three different gratings were installed. Osteochondral samples were positioned perpendicular to the X-ray source.
Fig 3Phase contrast images.
High-resolution three-dimensional phase contrast images were acquired axially, thus avoiding artifacts from the subchondral bone (B) to obscure the articular cartilage layer (A). Images were then reconstructed coronally for segmentation purposes (C). The white structure above the cartilage layer in C represents the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) rods for calibration of quantitative parameters.
Averages ±SEM for different quantitative cartilage parameters in both groups.
| Parameter | Healthy Cartilage | Degraded Cartilage | Mean Difference (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51.5 ±5.7 | 82.3 ±3.6 | 30.8 (16.2, 45.5) | 0.003 | |
| 34.7 ±1.7 | 59.5 ±1.3 | 24.8 (21.2, 28.3) | <0.001 | |
| 42.8 ±1.6 | 80.9 ±6.0 | 38.0 (20.0, 56.1) | 0.003 | |
| 43.2 ±4.5 | 45.7 ±2.8 | -2.4 (-9.9, 5.0) | 0.439 | |
| 18.8 ±2.5 | 9.8 ±0.8 | -9.0 (-16.9, -1.1) | 0.033 | |
| 6.9 ±1.8 | 25.9 ±2.2 | 19.1 (14.2, 23.9) | <0.001 | |
| 94.3 ±1.6 | 77.1 ±2.1 | 17.2 (12.7, 21.7) | <0.001 |
Healthy cartilage, untreated native cartilage; Degraded cartilage, cartilage with enzymatic degradation using trypsin; 95% CI, lower, upper 95% confidence interval; PCCT, Grating-based X-ray phase contrast computed tomography.
Fig 4Color coded images for all imaging techniques of one healthy and one degraded osteochondral sample.
For T2 and T2* images, color coded maps were overlaid with the first-echo images of the multi-echo sequence. Blue color indicates low, red color high cartilage quantitative values. Quantitative MR parameters showed statistically significant differences between the two groups. PCCT, Grating-based X-ray phase contrast computed tomography.
Fig 5Morphological images of one osteochondral sample with a morphological cartilage defect (left column) and one intact osteochondral sample (right column) for all different imaging modalities.
A: PCCT. B: 3T MRI, IM-w fs sequence. C: 7T MRI, IM-w fs sequence. The defect is clearly depicted on the PCCT image, while it may only be suggested on MR images.
Fig 6Collagen phantom.
A: Phantom with different collagen contents (%) detected via Grating-based X-ray phase contrast computed tomography (PCCT). In the center a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) rod was positioned for calibration of quantitative parameters. B: Plot of HUps against the varying concentrations of collagen from the collagen phantom. PCCT was able to detect increasing concentrations of collagen.
Pearson correlations between different analyzed parameters pooling all analyzed samples.
| Parameter | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R = 0.91 | R = 0.59 | R = -0.08 (P = 0.804) | R = -0.42 (P = 0.177) | R = 0.89 | R = -0.89 | |
| R = 0.78 | R = 0.14 (P = 0.679) | R = -0.64 | R = 0.94 | R = -0.94 | ||
| R = 0.44 (P = 0.152) | R = -0.88 | R = 0.78 | R = -0.77 | |||
| R = -0.51 | R = 0.12 (P = 0.705) | R = 0.13 | ||||
| R = -0.72 | R = -0.72 | |||||
| R = 1.0 |
PCCT, Grating-based X-ray phase contrast computed tomography; Stiffness; Creep-indentation, indentation depth after 3rd compression cycle (111kPa creep load); creep-backswelling, recovery capacity after 3rd recovery cycle (5kPa test load).
*, P<0.05
Area under the curve (AUC) determined with ROC analyses with respect to prediction of cartilage degradation and efficacy of different techniques in the detection of cartilage degradation.
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.56 | |
| 1.00, 1.00 | 1.00, 1.00 | 1.00, 1.00 | 0.20, 0.91 | |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.749 | |
| 68.5 ms | 51.9 ms | 61.5 ms | 46.8 HUp | |
| 100% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 67% | |
| 100% | 100% | 100.00% | 67% | |
| 0.92 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 0.74, 1.00 | 1.00, 1.00 | 1.00, 1.00 | ||
| 0.016 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| 11.6 ms | 17.30% | 84.90% | ||
| 100% | 100% | 100% | ||
| 75% | 100% | 100% |
95% CI, lower, upper 95% confidence interval; PCCT, Grating-based X-ray phase contrast computed tomography; pHU, phase contrast Hounsfield Units.