Cartilage morphology at 3.0T: Assessment of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging techniques

Authors

  • Christina A. Chen BA,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
    • 300 Pasteur Dr. SO-68B, Stanford, CA 94305-5105
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Richard Kijowski MD,

    1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lauren M. Shapiro BA,

    1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michael J. Tuite MD,

    1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kirkland W. Davis MD,

    1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jessica L. Klaers PhD,

    1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    2. Deparment of Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Walter F. Block PhD,

    1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    2. Deparment of Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Scott B. Reeder MD, PhD,

    1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    2. Deparment of Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    3. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    4. Deparment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Garry E. Gold MD

    1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
    2. Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
    3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

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.

Ancillary