Upasana Upadhyay Bharadwaj1, Adam Coy2,3, Daria Motamedi2, Dong Sun2,4, Gabby B Joseph2, Roland Krug2, Thomas M Link2. 1. Musculoskeletal Imaging, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 185 Berry Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. Upasana.Bharadwaj@ucsf.edu. 2. Musculoskeletal Imaging, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 185 Berry Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. 3. Musculoskeletal Radiology, Vision Radiology, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively evaluate the utility of zero echo-time (ZTE) MRI sequences in identifying osseous findings and to compare ZTE with optimized spoiled gradient echo (SPGR) sequences in detecting knee osseous abnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ZTE and standard knee MRI sequences were acquired at 3T in 100 consecutive patients. Three radiologists rated confidence in evaluating osseous abnormalities and image quality on a 5-grade Likert scale in ZTE compared to standard sequences. In a subset of knees (n = 57) SPGR sequences were also obtained, and diagnostic confidence in identifying osseous structures was assessed, comparing ZTE and SPGR sequences. Statistical significance of using ZTE over SPGR was characterized with a paired t-test. RESULTS: Image quality of the ZTE sequences was rated high by all reviewers with 278 out of 299 (100 studies, 3 radiologists) scores ≥ 4 on the Likert scale. Diagnostic confidence in using ZTE sequences was rated "very high confidence" in 97%, 85%, 71%, and 73% of the cases for osteophytosis, subchondral cysts, fractures, and soft tissue calcifications/ossifications, respectively. In 74% of cases with osseous findings, reviewer scores indicated confidence levels (score ≥ 3) that ZTE sequences improved diagnostic certainty over standard sequences. The diagnostic confidence in using ZTE over SPGR sequences for osseous structures as well as abnormalities was favorable and statistically significant (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Incorporating ZTE sequences in the standard knee MRI protocol was technically feasible and improved diagnostic confidence for osseous findings in relation to standard MR sequences. In comparison to SPGR sequences, ZTE improved assessment of osseous abnormalities.
OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively evaluate the utility of zero echo-time (ZTE) MRI sequences in identifying osseous findings and to compare ZTE with optimized spoiled gradient echo (SPGR) sequences in detecting knee osseous abnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ZTE and standard knee MRI sequences were acquired at 3T in 100 consecutive patients. Three radiologists rated confidence in evaluating osseous abnormalities and image quality on a 5-grade Likert scale in ZTE compared to standard sequences. In a subset of knees (n = 57) SPGR sequences were also obtained, and diagnostic confidence in identifying osseous structures was assessed, comparing ZTE and SPGR sequences. Statistical significance of using ZTE over SPGR was characterized with a paired t-test. RESULTS: Image quality of the ZTE sequences was rated high by all reviewers with 278 out of 299 (100 studies, 3 radiologists) scores ≥ 4 on the Likert scale. Diagnostic confidence in using ZTE sequences was rated "very high confidence" in 97%, 85%, 71%, and 73% of the cases for osteophytosis, subchondral cysts, fractures, and soft tissue calcifications/ossifications, respectively. In 74% of cases with osseous findings, reviewer scores indicated confidence levels (score ≥ 3) that ZTE sequences improved diagnostic certainty over standard sequences. The diagnostic confidence in using ZTE over SPGR sequences for osseous structures as well as abnormalities was favorable and statistically significant (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Incorporating ZTE sequences in the standard knee MRI protocol was technically feasible and improved diagnostic confidence for osseous findings in relation to standard MR sequences. In comparison to SPGR sequences, ZTE improved assessment of osseous abnormalities.
Authors: Garry E Gold; Eric Han; Jeff Stainsby; Graham Wright; Jean Brittain; Christopher Beaulieu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Govind B Chavhan; Paul S Babyn; Bhavin G Jankharia; Hai-Ling M Cheng; Manohar M Shroff Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Roland Krug; Peder Eric Zufall Larson; Chunsheng Wang; Andrew J Burghardt; Douglas A C Kelley; Thomas M Link; Xiaoliang Zhang; Daniel B Vigneron; Sharmila Majumdar Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Hiroshi Yoshioka; Kathryn Stevens; Brian A Hargreaves; Daniel Steines; Mark Genovese; Michael F Dillingham; Carl S Winalski; Philipp Lang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: S B Cho; H J Baek; K H Ryu; B H Choi; J I Moon; T B Kim; S K Kim; H Park; M J Hwang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Peder E Z Larson; Misung Han; Roland Krug; Angela Jakary; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel B Vigneron; Roland G Henry; Graeme McKinnon; Douglas A C Kelley Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Mateusz C Florkow; Frank Zijlstra; Koen Willemsen; Matteo Maspero; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Linda G W Kerkmeijer; René M Castelein; Harrie Weinans; Max A Viergever; Marijn van Stralen; Peter R Seevinck Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Pauli Virtanen; Ralf Gommers; Travis E Oliphant; Matt Haberland; Tyler Reddy; David Cournapeau; Evgeni Burovski; Pearu Peterson; Warren Weckesser; Jonathan Bright; Stéfan J van der Walt; Matthew Brett; Joshua Wilson; K Jarrod Millman; Nikolay Mayorov; Andrew R J Nelson; Eric Jones; Robert Kern; Eric Larson; C J Carey; İlhan Polat; Yu Feng; Eric W Moore; Jake VanderPlas; Denis Laxalde; Josef Perktold; Robert Cimrman; Ian Henriksen; E A Quintero; Charles R Harris; Anne M Archibald; Antônio H Ribeiro; Fabian Pedregosa; Paul van Mulbregt Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Kamlesh B Patel; Cihat Eldeniz; Gary B Skolnick; Udayabhanu Jammalamadaka; Paul K Commean; Manu S Goyal; Matthew D Smyth; Hongyu An Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 2.375
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