Premium
Delayed contrast enhanced MRI of meniscus with ionic and non‐ionic agents
Author(s) -
Li Wei,
Edelman Robert R.,
Prasad Pottumarthi V.
Publication year - 2011
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.22477
Subject(s) - meniscus , contrast (vision) , ionic bonding , relaxation (psychology) , magnetic resonance imaging , nuclear medicine , medicine , chemistry , nuclear magnetic resonance , radiology , ion , physics , incidence (geometry) , organic chemistry , optics
Purpose: To evaluate the potential difference in post‐contrast T 1 relaxation time of the meniscus (T 1Gd ) between osteoarthritic patients (OA) and healthy subjects (HS), and to verify if charge density has any influence on meniscal T 1Gd . Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of meniscal T 1 relaxation time on data previously acquired for studying articular cartilage with both ionic and non‐ionic contrast media. MR imaging was performed in 10 OA and 8 HS at 120 min following administration of double‐dose ionic Gd‐DTPA 2− on one day and non‐ionic Gd‐DTPA‐BMA on a different day. A three‐dimensional Look‐Locker sequence with echo time of 2 ms was used for data acquisition to allow T 1 mapping of the meniscus. Results: Compared with HS, significantly lower meniscal T 1Gd was observed in OA with either ionic Gd‐DTPA 2− ( P < 0.01) or non‐ionic Gd‐DTPA‐BMA ( P < 0.001) contrast agent. There was a correlation between meniscal T 1 (Gd‐DTPA 2− ) versus T 1 (Gd‐DTPA‐BMA). Meniscal T 1 (Gd‐DTPA‐BMA) showed a larger difference and smaller overlap between OA and HS. No significant differences in either pre‐contrast T 1 or post‐contrast T 1Gd were observed between inner and outer zones of the meniscus with either agent. Conclusion: Significant differences in meniscal T 1Gd between OA and HS were observed with both ionic and non‐ionic contrast agents, suggesting that charge density is not responsible for the observed differences. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2011;33:731–735. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.