Comparison of 1.5-and 3.0-T MR Imaging for Evaluating the Articular Cartilage of the Knee Joint

被引:125
|
作者
Kijowski, Richard [1 ]
Blankenbaker, Donna G. [1 ]
Davis, Kirkland W. [1 ,2 ]
Shinki, Kazuhiko [1 ]
Kaplan, Lee D. [3 ]
De Smet, Arthur A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin Hosp, Dept Radiol, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin Hosp, Dept Stat, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[3] Univ Wisconsin Hosp, Dept Orthoped Surg, Madison, WI 53792 USA
关键词
FAST-SPIN-ECHO; RISK-FACTORS; 1.5; T; ARTHROSCOPY; DEFECTS; LESIONS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; SEQUENCES; MODEL; RECONSTRUCTION;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2503080822
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To retrospectively compare the diagnostic performance of 1.5- and 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocols for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint in symptomatic patients. Materials and Methods: This HIPAA-compliant study was performed with a waiver of informed consent from the institutional review board. The study group consisted of 200 symptomatic patients undergoing MR examination of the knee at 1.5 T (61 men, 39 women; mean age, 38.9 years) or 3.0 T (52 men, 48 women; mean age, 39.1 years), who also underwent subsequent arthroscopic knee surgery. All MR examinations consisted of multiplanar fast spin-echo sequences with similar tissue contrast at 1.5 and 3.0 T. All articular surfaces were graded at arthroscopy by using the Noyes classification system. Three musculoskeletal radiologists retrospectively and independently graded all articular surfaces seen at MR imaging by using a similar classification system. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 1.5- and 3.0-T MR protocols for detecting cartilage lesions were determined by using arthroscopy as the reference standard. The z test was used to compare sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values at 1.5 and 3.0 T. Results: For all readers combined, the respective sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MR imaging for detecting cartilage lesions were 69.3%, 78.0%, and 74.5% at 1.5 T (n = 241) and 70.5%, 85.9%, and 80.1% at 3.0 T (n = 226). The MR imaging protocol had significantly higher specificity and accuracy (P < .05) but not higher sensitivity (P = .73) for detecting cartilage lesions at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T. Conclusion: A 3.0-T MR protocol has improved diagnostic performance for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint in symptomatic patients when compared with a 1.5- T protocol. (c) RSNA, 2009
引用
收藏
页码:839 / 848
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] MR imaging of cartilage in cadaveric wrists: Comparison between imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T and gross pathologic inspection
    Saupe, Nadja
    Pfirrmann, Christian W. A.
    Schmid, Marius R.
    Schertler, Thomas
    Manestar, Mirjana
    Weishaupt, Dominik
    RADIOLOGY, 2007, 243 (01) : 180 - 187
  • [22] Comparison of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MR: Imaging of the spine
    Phalke, Vaishali V.
    Gujar, Sachin
    Quint, Douglas J.
    NEUROIMAGING CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2006, 16 (02) : 241 - +
  • [23] Texture analysis of articular cartilage traumatic changes in the knee calculated from morphological 3.0 T MR imaging
    Boutsikou, Konstantina
    Kostopoulos, Spiros
    Glotsos, Dimitris
    Cavouras, Dionisis
    Lavdas, Eleftherios
    Oikonomou, Georgia
    Malizos, Konstantinos
    Fezoulidis, Ioannis V.
    Vlychou, Marianna
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2013, 82 (08) : 1266 - 1272
  • [24] Abdominal applications of 3.0-T MR imaging: Comparative review versus a 1.5-T system
    Choi, Jin-Young
    Kim, Myeong-Jin
    Chung, Yong Eun
    Kim, Ki Youn
    Jones, Alun C.
    de Becker, Jan
    van Cauteren, Marc
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2008, 28 (04) : e30
  • [25] Evaluation of the acetabular labrum at 3.0-T MR imaging compared with 1.5-t MR arthrography: Preliminary experience
    Sundberg, TP
    Toomayan, GA
    Major, NM
    RADIOLOGY, 2006, 238 (02) : 706 - 711
  • [26] Use of 3.0-T MR Imaging for Evaluation of the Abdomen
    Erturk, Sukru Mehmet
    Alberich-Bayarri, Angel
    Herrmann, Karin A.
    Marti-Bonmati, Luis
    Ros, Pablo R.
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2009, 29 (06) : 1547 - 1564
  • [27] MR Imaging of the Articular Cartilage of the Knee and Ankle
    Forney, Michael
    Subhas, Naveen
    Donley, Brian
    Winalski, Carl S.
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2011, 19 (02) : 379 - +
  • [28] Functional 3.0-T MR assessment of higher cognitive function: Are there advantages over 1.5-T imaging?
    Hoenig, K
    Kuhl, CK
    Scheef, L
    RADIOLOGY, 2005, 234 (03) : 860 - 868
  • [29] Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: Preliminary results in a porcine model
    Masi, JN
    Sell, CA
    Phan, C
    Han, E
    Newitt, D
    Steinbach, L
    Majumdar, S
    Link, TM
    RADIOLOGY, 2005, 236 (01) : 140 - 150
  • [30] Articular Cartilage of the Human Knee Joint: In Vivo Multicomponent T2 Analysis at 3.0 T
    Liu, Fang
    Choi, Kwang Won
    Samsonov, Alexey
    Spencer, Richard G.
    Wilson, John J.
    Block, Walter F.
    Kijowski, Richard
    RADIOLOGY, 2015, 277 (02) : 477 - 488