Seungho Lee1, Guen Young Lee1, Sujin Kim1, Yong-Beom Park2, Han-Jun Lee2. 1. Department of the Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of the orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare htree-dimensional CAIPIRINHA SPACE and two-dimensional turbo spin echo (2D TSE) MRI in the diagnosis of knee pathology in symptomatic adult patients. METHODS: From February to September in 2018, 120 patients who underwent a knee MRI using both 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE and 2D TSE MRI were enrolled. The signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the 2D and 3D MRI were compared using a paired t-test. Two radiologists independently evaluated both 2D and 3D MRI images using scoring systems for the menisci, ligaments, and cartilage. Intermethod, inter- and intrareader agreements were determined using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The diagnostic performance of both methods was measured in 44 patients with arthroscopy. RESULTS: The mean scan time of 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE MRI (4' 43") was shorter than that of 2D TSE MRI (17' 27"). The mean SNR and CNR of 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE was higher than those of 2D TSE MRI (mean difference, 3.97 of SNR and 1.58 of CNR; p < 0.001 and p = .038, respectively). Intermethod (ICC, 0.84-1.0) and inter-reader (ICC, 0.75-0.97), and intra-reader agreements (ICC, 0.87-1.0) were good or excellent. The diagnostic accuracy of 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE sequence was equal for ligament (95.5%) and better for meniscal and cartilage evaluation (84.1% each), compared to 2D TSE MRI (79.5% each). CONCLUSION: The fat-suppressed 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE MRI maybe useful in clinical practice for the evaluation of the knee in place of the 2D conventional MRI protocol. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: 1. The 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE MRI of the knee joint may be acceptable to be used in clinical practice showing comparable imaging quality compared to conventional 2D TSE MRI.2. Compared with arthroscopic findings as the gold-standard, the diagnostic performance of 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE MRI was equal or better for knee joint evaluation than that of 2D TSE MRI, as well as with shorter scan time.
OBJECTIVE: To compare htree-dimensional CAIPIRINHA SPACE and two-dimensional turbo spin echo (2D TSE) MRI in the diagnosis of knee pathology in symptomatic adult patients. METHODS: From February to September in 2018, 120 patients who underwent a knee MRI using both 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE and 2D TSE MRI were enrolled. The signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the 2D and 3D MRI were compared using a paired t-test. Two radiologists independently evaluated both 2D and 3D MRI images using scoring systems for the menisci, ligaments, and cartilage. Intermethod, inter- and intrareader agreements were determined using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The diagnostic performance of both methods was measured in 44 patients with arthroscopy. RESULTS: The mean scan time of 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE MRI (4' 43") was shorter than that of 2D TSE MRI (17' 27"). The mean SNR and CNR of 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE was higher than those of 2D TSE MRI (mean difference, 3.97 of SNR and 1.58 of CNR; p < 0.001 and p = .038, respectively). Intermethod (ICC, 0.84-1.0) and inter-reader (ICC, 0.75-0.97), and intra-reader agreements (ICC, 0.87-1.0) were good or excellent. The diagnostic accuracy of 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE sequence was equal for ligament (95.5%) and better for meniscal and cartilage evaluation (84.1% each), compared to 2D TSE MRI (79.5% each). CONCLUSION: The fat-suppressed 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE MRI maybe useful in clinical practice for the evaluation of the knee in place of the 2D conventional MRI protocol. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: 1. The 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE MRI of the knee joint may be acceptable to be used in clinical practice showing comparable imaging quality compared to conventional 2D TSE MRI.2. Compared with arthroscopic findings as the gold-standard, the diagnostic performance of 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE MRI was equal or better for knee joint evaluation than that of 2D TSE MRI, as well as with shorter scan time.
Authors: Katherine L Wright; Michael W Harrell; John A Jesberger; Luis Landeras; Dean A Nakamoto; Smitha Thomas; Dominik Nickel; Randall Kroeker; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Naveen Subhas; Amy Kao; Maxime Freire; Joshua M Polster; Nancy A Obuchowski; Carl S Winalski Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mike Notohamiprodjo; Annie Horng; Matthias F Pietschmann; Peter E Müller; Wilhelm Horger; Jaeseok Park; Alexander Crispin; José Raya Garcia del Olmo; Sabine Weckbach; Karin A Herrmann; Maximilian F Reiser; Christian Glaser Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Philip M Robson; Aaron K Grant; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Riccardo Lattanzi; Daniel K Sodickson; Charles A McKenzie Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jan Fritz; Shivani Ahlawat; Benjamin Fritz; Gaurav K Thawait; Steven E Stern; Esther Raithel; Walter Klyce; Rushyuan J Lee Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jin Young Jung; Young Cheol Yoon; Hye Rin Kim; Bong-Keun Choe; Joon Ho Wang; Jee Young Jung Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Richard Kijowski; Kirkland W Davis; Michael A Woods; Mary J Lindstrom; Arthur A De Smet; Garry E Gold; Reed F Busse Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Judith Herrmann; Gabriel Keller; Sebastian Gassenmaier; Dominik Nickel; Gregor Koerzdoerfer; Mahmoud Mostapha; Haidara Almansour; Saif Afat; Ahmed E Othman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 7.034