Gerd Melkus1,2, Paul E Beaulé3,4, Geoffrey Wilkin3,4, Kawan S Rakhra1,2. 1. G. Melkus, K. S. Rakhra, Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. G. Melkus, K. S. Rakhra, Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. P. E. Beaulé, G. Wilkin, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. P. E. Beaulé, G. Wilkin, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) is a validated technique for evaluating cartilage health in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), which can be a helpful prognosticator for the response to surgical treatments. dGEMRIC requires intravenous injection of gadolinium contrast, however, which adds time, expense, and possible adverse reactions to the imaging procedure. Newer MRI cartilage mapping techniques such as T1 rho (ρ) and T2* have been performed in the hip without the need for any contrast, although it is unknown whether they are equivalent to dGEMRIC. QUESTION/ PURPOSE: In this study, our purpose was to determine the correlation between the relaxation values of three cartilage mapping techniques, dGEMRIC, T1ρ, and T2*, in patients with DDH. METHODS: Fifteen patients with DDH (three male, 12 female; mean age 29 ± 9 years) scheduled for periacetabular osteotomy underwent preoperative dGEMRIC, T1ρ, and T2* MRI at 3T with quantitative cartilage mapping. The outcomes of dGEMRIC, T1ρ, and T2* mapping were calculated for three regions of interest (ROI) to analyze the weightbearing cartilage of the hip: global ROI, anterior and posterior ROI, and further subdivided into medial, intermediate, and lateral to generate six smaller ROIs. The correlation between the respective relaxation time values was evaluated using the Spearman correlation coefficient (rS) for each ROI, categorized as negligible, weak, moderate, strong, or very strong. The relaxation values within the subdivided ROIs were compared for each of the three cartilage mapping techniques using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation of T1ρ and T2* relaxation values with dGEMRIC relaxation values. For the global ROI, there was a moderate correlation between dGEMRIC and T2* (moderate; rS = 0.63; p = 0.01). For the anterior ROI, a moderate or strong correlation was found between dGEMRIC and both T1ρ and T2*: dGEMRIC and T1ρ (strong; rS = -0.71; p = 0.003) and dGEMRIC and T2* (moderate; rS = 0.69; p = 0.004). There were no correlations for the posterior ROI. The mean dGEMRIC, T1ρ, and T2* relaxation values were not different between the anterior and posterior ROIs nor between the subdivided six ROIs. CONCLUSION: Quantitative T1ρ and T2* cartilage mapping demonstrated a moderate correlation with dGEMRIC, anteriorly and globally, respectively. However, the clinical relevance of such a correlation remains unclear. Further research investigating the correlation of these two noncontrast techniques with clinical function and outcome scores is needed before broad implementation in the preoperative investigation of DDH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.
BACKGROUND: Delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) is a validated technique for evaluating cartilage health in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), which can be a helpful prognosticator for the response to surgical treatments. dGEMRIC requires intravenous injection of gadolinium contrast, however, which adds time, expense, and possible adverse reactions to the imaging procedure. Newer MRI cartilage mapping techniques such as T1 rho (ρ) and T2* have been performed in the hip without the need for any contrast, although it is unknown whether they are equivalent to dGEMRIC. QUESTION/ PURPOSE: In this study, our purpose was to determine the correlation between the relaxation values of three cartilage mapping techniques, dGEMRIC, T1ρ, and T2*, in patients with DDH. METHODS: Fifteen patients with DDH (three male, 12 female; mean age 29 ± 9 years) scheduled for periacetabular osteotomy underwent preoperative dGEMRIC, T1ρ, and T2* MRI at 3T with quantitative cartilage mapping. The outcomes of dGEMRIC, T1ρ, and T2* mapping were calculated for three regions of interest (ROI) to analyze the weightbearing cartilage of the hip: global ROI, anterior and posterior ROI, and further subdivided into medial, intermediate, and lateral to generate six smaller ROIs. The correlation between the respective relaxation time values was evaluated using the Spearman correlation coefficient (rS) for each ROI, categorized as negligible, weak, moderate, strong, or very strong. The relaxation values within the subdivided ROIs were compared for each of the three cartilage mapping techniques using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation of T1ρ and T2* relaxation values with dGEMRIC relaxation values. For the global ROI, there was a moderate correlation between dGEMRIC and T2* (moderate; rS = 0.63; p = 0.01). For the anterior ROI, a moderate or strong correlation was found between dGEMRIC and both T1ρ and T2*: dGEMRIC and T1ρ (strong; rS = -0.71; p = 0.003) and dGEMRIC and T2* (moderate; rS = 0.69; p = 0.004). There were no correlations for the posterior ROI. The mean dGEMRIC, T1ρ, and T2* relaxation values were not different between the anterior and posterior ROIs nor between the subdivided six ROIs. CONCLUSION: Quantitative T1ρ and T2* cartilage mapping demonstrated a moderate correlation with dGEMRIC, anteriorly and globally, respectively. However, the clinical relevance of such a correlation remains unclear. Further research investigating the correlation of these two noncontrast techniques with clinical function and outcome scores is needed before broad implementation in the preoperative investigation of DDH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.
Authors: Florian Schmaranzer; Larissa Arendt; Emanuel F Liechti; Katja Nuss; Brigitte von Rechenberg; Patrick R Kircher; Moritz Tannast Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Torin Cunningham; Rebecca Jessel; David Zurakowski; Michael B Millis; Young-Jo Kim Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: B Bittersohl; F R Miese; H S Hosalkar; M Herten; G Antoch; R Krauspe; C Zilkens Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Evgeny Bulat; Sarah D Bixby; Carl Siversson; Leslie A Kalish; Simon K Warfield; Young-Jo Kim Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Martin Beck; Michael Leunig; Javad Parvizi; Vincent Boutier; Daniel Wyss; Reinhold Ganz Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.176