| Literature DB >> 34218322 |
Paula Giesler1, Frederic A Baumann2, Dominik Weidlich3, Dimitrios C Karampinos3, Matthias Jung1, Christian Holwein4, Julia Schneider4, Alexandra S Gersing3,5, Andreas B Imhoff4, Fabian Bamberg1, Pia M Jungmann6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the 2-year magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcome after MPFL reconstruction at the knee and to assess MRI-based risk factors that predispose for inferior clinical and imaging outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Cartilage; Joint instability; Knee; Ligaments; Magnetic resonance imaging; Patellar dislocation; Patellofemoral joint; Risk factors
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34218322 PMCID: PMC8763754 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-021-03832-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Skeletal Radiol ISSN: 0364-2348 Impact factor: 2.199
MR imaging pulse sequence parameters
| Sequence | T1-w TSE | IM-w TSE | IM-w TSE | IM-w TSE | MESE T2 | SPGR T1rho |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additional features | 2D | 2D, blade, FS | 2D, blade, FS | 2D, blade, FS | 2D | 3D, FS |
| Plane | Sagittal | Sagittal | Coronal | Transverse | Sagittal | Sagittal |
| Echo time (TE; ms) | 13 | 44 | 44 | 40 | 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 | - |
| Spin lock duration (TSL; ms) | - | - | - | - | - | 10, 20, 40, 60, 80 |
| Repetition time (TR; ms) | 785 | 4202 | 3363 | 5456 | 2200 | 9.6 |
| Field of view (FOV; mm) | 140 | 140 | 140 | 150 | 140 | 140 |
| In-plane resolution (mm2) | 0.4 × 0.4 | 0.4 × 0.4 | 0.4 × 0.4 | 0.4 × 0.4 | 0.4 × 0.4 | 0.5 × 0.5 |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.5 | 2.0 |
| Number of slices | 28 | 30 | 24 | 36 | 30* | 45* |
| Slice distance (mm) | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.3 | 2.5 | 2 |
| Flip angle (°) | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 10 |
| Bandwidth per pixel (Hz) | 143 | 187 | 187 | 201 | 251 | 217 |
| Phase encoding direction | Column | Column | Column | Row | Column | Row |
| Number of averages | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Acquisition time (min) | 3:06 | 4:50 | 4:50 | 5:42 | 5:33 | 11:00 |
MR, magnetic resonance; FOV, field of view; w, weighted; IM, intermediate; FS, fat-saturated; MESE, multi-slice multi-echo spin-echo; SPGR, spoiled gradient recalled. *Per echo.
Means ± SEM for the ipsilateral and contralateral cartilage T2 and T1rho relaxation times of the global knee and of the different knee compartments. For the differences between ipsilateral and contralateral values, confidence intervals (lower 95% confidence interval (CI), upper 95% CI) and P-values are provided. Relative values were calculated as patellofemoral mean value divided by femorotibial mean value. T2relative was significantly higher at the ipsilateral knee
| Compartment | T2 (ms) ipsilateral | T2 (ms) contralateral | 95% CI | P | T1rho (ms) ipsilateral | T1rho (ms) contralateral | 95% CI | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global knee | 31.1 ± 0.6 | 31.7 ± 0.6 | (− 1.4, 0.3) | 0.179 | 39.5 ± 0.4 | 39.5 ± 0.5 | (− 0.7, 0.8) | 0.886 |
| Relative value | 1.10 ± 0.16 | 1.05 ± 0.12 | (0.01, 0.09) | 0.010* | 1.30 ± 0.02 | 1.26 ± 0.02 | (− 0.00, 1.85) | 0.075 |
| Patella | 33.5 ± 0.6 | 33.5 ± 0.7 | (− 1.3, 1.4) | 0.939 | 46.6 ± 0.8 | 45.8 ± 0.9 | (− 0.8, 2.3) | 0.316 |
| Trochlea | 32.5 ± 0.7 | 31.9 ± 0.7 | (− 0.8, 2.1) | 0.363 | 46.7 ± 1.2 | 45.6 ± 1.0 | (− 1.2, 3.3) | 0.348 |
| Medial femoral condyle | 34.1 ± 0.7 | 34.0 ± 0.8 | (− 2.4, 0.5) | 0.205 | 41.8 ± 0.8 | 40.8 ± 0.9 | (− 0.7, 2.5) | 0.238 |
| Lateral femoral condyle | 34.5 ± 0.8 | 35.6 ± 0.8 | (− 2.4, 0.2) | 0.089 | 42.1 ± 0.6 | 41.5 ± 0.9 | (− 1.2, 2.4) | 0.503 |
| Medial tibia plateau | 26.5 ± 0.6 | 27.7 ± 0.8 | (− 2.2, − 0.1) | 0.030 | 30.3 ± 1.0 | 32.0 ± 0.8 | (− 4.1, 0.7) | 0.156 |
| Lateral tibia plateau | 25.6 ± 0.6 | 26.6 ± 0.7 | (− 1.7, − 0.2) | 0.020 | 29.7 ± 0.9 | 31.1 ± 0.7 | (− 3.3, 0.6) | 0.172 |
*P < 0.05.
Fig. 1Bivariate linear fit of KOOS scores by total WORMS progression between baseline and follow-up, T2 relaxation times, and T1rho relaxation times in patients with MPFL reconstruction. *P < 0.05
Spearman correlations of different patellar instability MR imaging measurements and cartilage T2 and T1rho relaxation time measurements. Covariates were age, gender, and body mass index
| Parameter | Mean ± SD | Correlation with global T2 | Correlation with global T1rho | Correlation with T2relative | Correlation with T1rhorelative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facetal ratio | 0.49 ± 0.12 | R = 0.306; P = 0.113 | R = 0.096; P = 0.634 | R = − 0.062; P = 0.752 | R = 0.041; P = 0.835 |
| Trochlear depth (mm) | 4.7 ± 1.4 | R = 0.233; P = 0.233 | R = − 0.068; P = 0.738 | R = 0.019; P = 0.923 | R = 0.083; P = 0.676 |
| Sulcus angle (°) | 149 ± 11° | R = − 0.088; P = 0.657 | R = 0.022; P = 0.914 | R = 0.003; P = 0.990 | R = − 0.003; P = 0.987 |
| TTTG (mm) | 13.3 ± 4.0 | R = − 0.105; P = 0.596 | R = 0.312; P = 0.113 | R = 0.403; P = 0.034* | R = 0.097; P = 0.622 |
| Patellar tilt preOP (°) | 16.9 ± 9.6 | R = − 0.076; P = 0.765 | R = 0.267; P = 0.300 | R = 0.538; P = 0.021* | R = 0.145; P = 0.567 |
| Patellar tilt postOP (°) | 13.16.2 | R = − 0.254; P = 0.191 | R = 0.204; P = 0.308 | R = 0.137; P = 0.488 | R = 0.117; P = 0.554 |
| Caton-Dechamps preOP | 1.15 ± 0.04 | R = 0.062; P = 0.807 | R = − 0.473; P = 0.055 | R = − 0.102; P = 0.688 | R = − 0.138; P = 0.584 |
| Caton-Dechamps postOP | 1.13 ± 0.02 | R = − 0.142; P = 0.471 | R = − 0.111; P = 0.582 | R = − 0.189; P = 0.335 | R = − 0.279; P = 0.150 |
TTTG, tibial-tuberosity to trochlear groove distance; MR, magnetic resonance; preOP, preoperatively; postOP, postoperatively; SD, standard deviation
*P < 0.05
Fig. 2Trochlear dysplasia as a risk factor for progressive knee joint degeneration. Column A: Patient with normal trochlear configuration and without morphological cartilage defects at baseline and at follow-up after MPFL reconstruction. Column B: Patient with trochlear dysplasia and with no patellar cartilage defect at baseline but with new patellar morphological cartilage loss at follow-up after MPFL reconstruction. All images are transverse intermediate weighted turbo spin echo sequences with fat saturation
Fig. 3Comparison of the mean preoperative MR imaging-based patellar instability and trochlear dysplasia values between patients without progression of knee joint degeneration from baseline to follow-up (n = 5, depicted in green) and patients with progression of any WORMS subscore, indicating progression of knee joint degeneration from baseline to follow-up 2.3 years after MPFL reconstruction (n = 16, depicted in red). Average values, upper and lower boxes indicating the 2 and 3 quartile and upper and lower whisker indicating the range of the parameters. *P < 0.05
Fig. 4T1rho (upper row) and T2 (lower row) color maps of the patellar cartilage overlaid on the first-echo images. Blue color indicates low and red color high cartilage relaxation times. Subjects with normal preoperative patellar tilt and normal TTTG distance (column A) showed lower cartilage relaxation times than subjects with high preoperative patellar tilt and high TTTG distance (column B)