Premium
Cartilage morphology at 3.0T: Assessment of three‐dimensional magnetic resonance imaging techniques
Author(s) -
Chen Christina A.,
Kijowski Richard,
Shapiro Lauren M.,
Tuite Michael J.,
Davis Kirkland W.,
Klaers Jessica L.,
Block Walter F.,
Reeder Scott B.,
Gold Garry E.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.22213
Subject(s) - cube (algebra) , magnetic resonance imaging , cartilage , computer science , biomedical engineering , image contrast , image quality , echo (communications protocol) , contrast (vision) , nuclear medicine , materials science , medicine , radiology , computer vision , mathematics , anatomy , computer network , combinatorics , image (mathematics)
Purpose: To compare six new three‐dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance (MR) methods for evaluating knee cartilage at 3.0T. Materials and Methods: We compared: fast‐spin‐echo cube (FSE‐Cube), vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction balanced steady‐state free precession (VIPR‐bSSFP), iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least‐squares estimation combined with spoiled gradient echo (IDEAL‐SPGR) and gradient echo (IDEAL‐GRASS), multiecho in steady‐state acquisition (MENSA), and coherent oscillatory state acquisition for manipulation of image contrast (COSMIC). Five‐minute sequences were performed twice on 10 healthy volunteers and once on five osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) and contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) were measured from the volunteers. Images of the five volunteers and the five OA patients were ranked on tissue contrast, articular surface clarity, reformat quality, and lesion conspicuity. FSE‐Cube and VIPR‐bSSFP were compared to IDEAL‐SPGR for cartilage volume measurements. Results: FSE‐Cube had top rankings for lesion conspicuity, overall SNR, and CNR ( P < 0.02). VIPR‐bSSFP had top rankings in tissue contrast and articular surface clarity. VIPR and FSE‐Cube tied for best in reformatting ability. FSE‐Cube and VIPR‐bSSFP compared favorably to IDEAL‐SPGR in accuracy and precision of cartilage volume measurements. Conclusion: FSE‐Cube and VIPR‐bSSFP produce high image quality with accurate volume measurement of knee cartilage. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010;32:173–183. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.