Open AccessDifferentiation of Cartilage Repair Techniques Using Texture Analysis from T2 Maps
Author(s) -
Vladimír Juráš,
Pavol Szomolányi,
Veronika Janáčová,
Alexandra Kirner,
Peter Angele,
Siegfried Trattnig
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
cartilage
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1947-6043
pISSN - 1947-6035
DOI - 10.1177/19476035211029698
Subject(s) - cartilage , receiver operating characteristic , knee cartilage , condyle , medicine , osteoarthritis , biomedical engineering , anatomy , pathology , articular cartilage , alternative medicine
Objective The aim of this study was to investigate texture features from T 2 maps as a marker for distinguishing the maturation of repair tissue after 2 different cartilage repair procedures.Design Seventy-nine patients, after either microfracture (MFX) or matrix-associated chondrocyte transplantation (MACT), were examined on a 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) scanner with morphological and quantitative (T 2 mapping) MR sequences 2 years after surgery. Twenty-one texture features from a gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) were extracted. The texture feature difference between 2 repair types was assessed individually for the femoral condyle and trochlea/anterior condyle using linear regression models. The stability and reproducibility of texture features for focal cartilage were calculated using intra-observer variability and area under curve from receiver operating characteristics.Results There was no statistical significance found between MFX and MACT for T 2 values ( P = 0.96). There was, however, found a statistical significance between MFX and MACT in femoral condyle in GLCM features autocorrelation ( P < 0.001), sum of squares ( P = 0.023), sum average ( P = 0.005), sum variance ( P = 0.0048), and sum entropy ( P = 0.05); and in anterior condyle/trochlea homogeneity ( P = 0.02) and dissimilarity ( P < 0.001).Conclusion Texture analysis using GLCM provides a useful extension to T 2 mapping for the characterization of cartilage repair tissue by increasing its sensitivity to tissue structure. Some texture features were able to distinguish between repair tissue after different cartilage repair procedures, as repair tissue texture (and hence, probably collagen organization) 24 months after MACT more closely resembled healthy cartilage than did MFX repair tissue.