Top

Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine

Published in:

01-08-2012 | Research Article

Comparison between different implementations of the 3D FLASH sequence for knee cartilage quantification

Authors: Martin Hudelmaier, Christian Glaser, Christian Pfau, Felix Eckstein

Published in: Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine | Issue 4/2012

Abstract

Objective

To compare several sequence implementations of the 3D FLASH sequence in the context of quantitative cartilage imaging.

Materials and methods

Test–retest coronal fast low angle shot (FLASH) sequences with water excitation were acquired in knees of 12 healthy participants, using two 1.5 T scanners from the same manufacturer. On one of the scanners, the FLASH was additionally compared with a FLASH VIBE, 75% with 100% slice resolution, a non-selective with a conventional spatial pulse, and “asymmetric echo allowed” with “not allowed”.

Results

Implementations of the FLASH showed systematic differences of up to 3.3%, but these were not statistically significant. Precision errors were similar between protocols, but tended to be smallest for the FLASH VIBE with 100% slice resolution (0.6–6.7%). In the medial tibia cartilage volume and thickness differed significantly (P < 0.01; 6.2 and 5.9%) between the two scanners.

Conclusion

Using a validated FLASH sequence, one can reduce slice resolution to 75% and allow asymmetric echo without sacrificing precision, in order to reduce the total acquisition time. However, in longitudinal studies, the scanner and the specific sequence implementation should be kept constant between baseline and follow-up, in order to avoid systematic off-sets in the measurements.

Burgkart R, Glaser C, Hyhlik-Durr A, Englmeier KH, Reiser M, Eckstein F (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging-based assessment of cartilage loss in severe osteoarthritis: accuracy, precision, and diagnostic value. Arthr Rheum 44:2072–2077CrossRef

Raynauld JP, Martel-Pelletier J, Berthiaume MJ, Beaudoin G, Choquette D, Haraoui B, Tannenbaum H, Meyer JM, Beary JF, Cline GA, Pelletier JP (2006) Long term evaluation of disease progression through the quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis patients: correlation with clinical symptoms and radiographic changes. Arthr Res Ther 8:R21CrossRef

Balamoody S, Williams TG, Waterton JC, Bowes M, Hodgson R, Taylor CJ, Hutchinson CE (2010) Comparison of 3T MR scanners in regional cartilage-thickness analysis in osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional multicenter, multivendor study. Arthr Res Ther 12:R202CrossRef

Wirth W, Nevitt M, Hellio Le Graverand MP, Benichou O, Dreher D, Davies RY, Lee J, Picha K, Gimona A, Maschek S, Hudelmaier M, Eckstein F (2010) Sensitivity to change of cartilage morphometry using coronal FLASH, sagittal DESS, and coronal MPR DESS protocols-comparative data from the osteoarthritis initiative (OAI). Osteoarthr Cartil 18:547–554PubMedCrossRef

Mosher TJ, Zhang Z, Reddy R, Boudhar S, Milestone BN, Morrison WB, Kwoh CK, Eckstein F, Witschey WR, Borthakur A (2011) Knee articular cartilage damage in osteoarthritis: analysis of MR image biomarker reproducibility in ACRIN-PA 4001 multicenter trial. Radiology 258:832–842PubMedCrossRef

Gray ML, Eckstein F, Peterfy C, Dahlberg L, Kim YJ, Sorensen AG (2004) Toward imaging biomarkers for osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 427:175–181CrossRef

Glaser C, Faber S, Eckstein F, Fischer H, Springer V, Heudorfer L, Stammberger T, Englmeier KH, Reiser M (2001) Optimization and validation of a rapid high-resolution T1-w 3D FLASH water excitation MRI sequence for the quantitative assessment of articular cartilage volume and thickness. Magn Reson Imaging 19:177–185PubMedCrossRef

Glaser C, Burgkart R, Kutschera A, Englmeier KH, Reiser M, Eckstein F (2003) Femoro-tibial cartilage metrics from coronal MR image data: technique, test–retest reproducibility, and findings in osteoarthritis. Magn Reson Med 50:1229–1236PubMedCrossRef

Wluka AE, Stuckey S, Snaddon J, Cicuttini FM (2002) The determinants of change in tibial cartilage volume in osteoarthritic knees. Arthr Rheum 46:2065–2072CrossRef

10.

Rofsky NM, Lee VS, Laub G, Pollack MA, Krinsky GA, Thomasson D, Ambrosino MM, Weinreb JC (1999) Abdominal MR imaging with a volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination. Radiology 212:876–884PubMed

11.

Zur Y (2000) Design of improved spectral-spatial pulses for routine clinical use. Magn Reson Med 43:410–420PubMedCrossRef

12.

Eckstein F, Buck RJ, Burstein D, Charles HC, Crim J, Hudelmaier M, Hunter DJ, Hutchins G, Jackson C, Kraus VB, Lane NE, Link TM, Majumdar LS, Mazzuca S, Prasad PV, Schnitzer TJ, Taljanovic MS, Vaz A, Wyman B, Le Graverand MP (2008) Precision of 3.0 Tesla quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage morphology in a multicentre clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis 67:1683–1688PubMedCrossRef

13.

Eckstein F, Maschek S, Wirth W, Hudelmaier M, Hitzl W, Wyman B, Nevitt M, Le Graverand MP (2009) One year change of knee cartilage morphology in the first release of participants from the osteoarthritis initiative progression subcohort: association with sex, body mass index, symptoms and radiographic osteoarthritis status. Ann Rheum Dis 68:674–679PubMedCrossRef

14.

Morgan SR, Waterton JC, Maciewicz RA, Leadbetter JE, Gandy SJ, Moots RJ, Creamer P, Nash AF (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging measurement of knee cartilage volume in a multicentre study. Rheumatology (Oxf) 43:19–21CrossRef

15.

Graichen H, Eisenhart-Rothe R, Vogl T, Englmeier KH, Eckstein F (2004) Quantitative assessment of cartilage status in osteoarthritis by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging: technical validation for use in analysis of cartilage volume and further morphologic parameters. Arthr Rheum 50:811–816CrossRef

16.

Stammberger T, Eckstein F, Englmeier KH, Reiser M (1999) Determination of 3D cartilage thickness data from MR imaging: computational method and reproducibility in the living. Magn Reson Med 41:529–536PubMedCrossRef

17.

Heudorfer L, Hohe J, Faber S, Englmeier KH, Reiser M, Eckstein F (2000) Precision MRI-based joint surface and cartilage density analysis of the knee joint using rapid water-excitation sequence and semi-automatic segmentation algorithm. Biomed Tech (Berl) 45:304–310CrossRef

18.

Kornaat PR, Koo S, Andriacchi TP, Bloem JL, Gold GE (2006) Comparison of quantitative cartilage measurements acquired on two 3.0T MRI systems from different manufacturers. J Magn Reson Imaging 23:770–773PubMedCrossRef

19.

Eckstein F, Kunz M, Hudelmaier M, Jackson R, Yu J, Eaton CB, Schneider E (2007) Impact of coil design on the contrast-to-noise ratio, precision, and consistency of quantitative cartilage morphometry at 3 Tesla: a pilot study for the osteoarthritis initiative. Magn Reson Med 57:448–454PubMedCrossRef

20.

McGibbon CA, Bencardino J, Palmer WE (2003) Subchondral bone and cartilage thickness from MRI: effects of chemical-shift artifact. Magn Reson Mater Phy 16:1–9CrossRef

Title: Comparison between different implementations of the 3D FLASH sequence for knee cartilage quantification
Authors: Martin Hudelmaier
Christian Glaser
Christian Pfau
Felix Eckstein
Publication date: 01-08-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine / Issue 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0968-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1352-8661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-011-0296-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison between different implementations of the 3D FLASH sequence for knee cartilage quantification

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2012

Effect of motion on the ADC quantification accuracy of whole-body DWIBS

Clinical implications of skeletal muscle blood-oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) MRI

Diffusion time dependence of magnetic resonance diffusion signal decays: an investigation of water exchange in human brain in vivo

Orientational dependent sensitivities of T2 and T1ρ towards trypsin degradation and Gd-DTPA2− presence in bovine nasal cartilage

Using the biophysical CHARMED model to elucidate the underpinnings of contrast in diffusional kurtosis analysis of diffusion-weighted MRI

A highly parallelized framework for computationally intensive MR data analysis