Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Skeletal Radiology 8/2009

Open Access 01-08-2009 | Scientific Article

Comparative study of imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T of the knee

Authors: Scott Wong, Lynne Steinbach, Jian Zhao, Christoph Stehling, C. Benjamin Ma, Thomas M. Link

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 8/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The objectives of the study were to compare MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T in the same patients concerning image quality and visualization of cartilage pathology and to assess diagnostic performance using arthroscopy as a standard of reference.

Materials and methods

Twenty-six patients were identified retrospectively as having comparative 1.5 and 3.0 T MR studies of the knee within an average of 102 days. Standard protocols included T1-weighted and fat-saturated intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo sequences in three planes; sequence parameters had been adjusted to account for differences in relaxation at 3.0 T. Arthroscopy was performed in 19 patients. Four radiologists reviewed each study independently, scored image quality, and analyzed pathological findings. Sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies in diagnosing cartilage lesions were calculated in the 19 patients with arthroscopy, and differences between 1.5 and 3.0 T exams were compared using paired Student’s t tests with a significance threshold of p < 0.05.

Results

Each radiologist scored the 3.0 T studies higher than those obtained at 1.5 T in visualizing anatomical structures and abnormalities (p < 0.05). Using arthroscopy as a standard of reference, diagnosis of cartilage abnormalities was improved at 3.0 T with higher sensitivity (75.7% versus 70.6%), accuracy (88.2% versus 86.4%), and correct grading of cartilage lesions (51.3% versus 42.9%). Diagnostic confidence scores were higher at 3.0 than 1.5 T (p < 0.05) and signal-to-noise ratio at 3.0 T was approximately twofold higher than at 1.5 T.

Conclusion

MRI at 3.0 T improved visualization of anatomical structures and improved diagnostic confidence compared to 1.5 T. This resulted in significantly better sensitivity and grading of cartilage lesions at the knee.
Literature
1.
go back to reference De Smet AA, Mukherjee R. Clinical, MRI, and arthroscopic findings associated with failure to diagnose a lateral meniscal tear on knee MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190: 22–26.CrossRef De Smet AA, Mukherjee R. Clinical, MRI, and arthroscopic findings associated with failure to diagnose a lateral meniscal tear on knee MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190: 22–26.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Huysse WC, Verstraete KL. Health technology assessment of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 65: 190–193.CrossRef Huysse WC, Verstraete KL. Health technology assessment of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 65: 190–193.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Link TM, Stahl R, Woertler K. Cartilage imaging: motivation, techniques, current and future significance. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 1135–1146.CrossRef Link TM, Stahl R, Woertler K. Cartilage imaging: motivation, techniques, current and future significance. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 1135–1146.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Craig JG, Go L, Blechinger J, et al. Three-tesla imaging of the knee: initial experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2005; 34: 453–461.CrossRef Craig JG, Go L, Blechinger J, et al. Three-tesla imaging of the knee: initial experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2005; 34: 453–461.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Shapiro MD, Magee T, Williams D, Ramnath R, Ross JS. The time for 3 T clinical imaging is now. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004; 25: 1628–1629.PubMed Shapiro MD, Magee T, Williams D, Ramnath R, Ross JS. The time for 3 T clinical imaging is now. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004; 25: 1628–1629.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Ramnath RR. 3 T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system (Part I): considerations, coils, and challenges. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006; 14: 27–40.CrossRef Ramnath RR. 3 T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system (Part I): considerations, coils, and challenges. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006; 14: 27–40.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bauer JS, Barr C, Henning TD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle at 3.0 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla in human cadaver specimens with artificially created lesions of cartilage and ligaments. Invest Radiol. 2008; 43: 604–611.CrossRef Bauer JS, Barr C, Henning TD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle at 3.0 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla in human cadaver specimens with artificially created lesions of cartilage and ligaments. Invest Radiol. 2008; 43: 604–611.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Masi JN, Sell CA, Phan C, et al. Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model. Radiology. 2005; 236: 140–150.CrossRef Masi JN, Sell CA, Phan C, et al. Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model. Radiology. 2005; 236: 140–150.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kijowski R, Blankenbaker DG, Davis KW, Shinki K, Kaplan LD, De Smet AA. Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. Radiology. 2009; 250: 839–848.CrossRef Kijowski R, Blankenbaker DG, Davis KW, Shinki K, Kaplan LD, De Smet AA. Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. Radiology. 2009; 250: 839–848.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Magee T. Three-tesla MR imaging of the knee. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007; 15: 125–132.CrossRef Magee T. Three-tesla MR imaging of the knee. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007; 15: 125–132.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Magee T, Williams D. 3.0-T MRI of meniscal tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187: 371–375.CrossRef Magee T, Williams D. 3.0-T MRI of meniscal tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187: 371–375.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ramnath RR, Magee T, Wasudev N, Murrah R. Accuracy of 3-T MRI using fast spin-echo technique to detect meniscal tears of the knee. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187: 221–225.CrossRef Ramnath RR, Magee T, Wasudev N, Murrah R. Accuracy of 3-T MRI using fast spin-echo technique to detect meniscal tears of the knee. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187: 221–225.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Recht MP, Piraino DW, Paletta GA, Schils JP, Belhobek GH. Accuracy of fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo FLASH MR imaging in the detection of patellofemoral articular cartilage abnormalities. Radiology. 1996; 198: 209–212.CrossRef Recht MP, Piraino DW, Paletta GA, Schils JP, Belhobek GH. Accuracy of fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo FLASH MR imaging in the detection of patellofemoral articular cartilage abnormalities. Radiology. 1996; 198: 209–212.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Barr C, Bauer JS, Malfair D, et al. MR imaging of the ankle at 3 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla: protocol optimization and application to cartilage, ligament and tendon pathology in cadaver specimens. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 1518–1528.CrossRef Barr C, Bauer JS, Malfair D, et al. MR imaging of the ankle at 3 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla: protocol optimization and application to cartilage, ligament and tendon pathology in cadaver specimens. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 1518–1528.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Fischbach F, Bruhn H, Unterhauser F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of hyaline cartilage defects at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of medium T2-weighted fast spin echo, T1-weighted two-dimensional and three-dimensional gradient echo pulse sequences. Acta Radiol. 2005; 46: 67–73.CrossRef Fischbach F, Bruhn H, Unterhauser F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of hyaline cartilage defects at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of medium T2-weighted fast spin echo, T1-weighted two-dimensional and three-dimensional gradient echo pulse sequences. Acta Radiol. 2005; 46: 67–73.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Link TM, Sell CA, Masi JN, et al. 3.0 vs 1.5 MRI in the detection of focal cartilage pathology–ROC analysis in an experimental model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006; 14: 63–70.CrossRef Link TM, Sell CA, Masi JN, et al. 3.0 vs 1.5 MRI in the detection of focal cartilage pathology–ROC analysis in an experimental model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006; 14: 63–70.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Kijowski R, Blankenbaker D, Davis K, Shinki K, Kaplan L, De Smet AA. Comparison of 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging systems for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. In: RSNA. Chicago, 2007; VS21-14. Kijowski R, Blankenbaker D, Davis K, Shinki K, Kaplan L, De Smet AA. Comparison of 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging systems for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. In: RSNA. Chicago, 2007; VS21-14.
18.
go back to reference Gold GE, McCauley TR, Gray ML, Disler DG. What's new in cartilage? Radiographics. 2003; 23: 1227–1242.CrossRef Gold GE, McCauley TR, Gray ML, Disler DG. What's new in cartilage? Radiographics. 2003; 23: 1227–1242.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Potter HG, Foo LF. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage: trauma, degeneration, and repair. Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34: 661–677.CrossRef Potter HG, Foo LF. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage: trauma, degeneration, and repair. Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34: 661–677.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Duc SR, Pfirrmann CW, Schmid MR, et al. Articular cartilage defects detected with 3D water-excitation true FISP: prospective comparison with sequences commonly used for knee imaging. Radiology. 2007; 245: 216–223.CrossRef Duc SR, Pfirrmann CW, Schmid MR, et al. Articular cartilage defects detected with 3D water-excitation true FISP: prospective comparison with sequences commonly used for knee imaging. Radiology. 2007; 245: 216–223.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Potter HG, Linklater JM, Allen AA, Hannafin JA, Haas SB. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage in the knee. An evaluation with use of fast-spin-echo imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998; 80: 1276–1284.CrossRef Potter HG, Linklater JM, Allen AA, Hannafin JA, Haas SB. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage in the knee. An evaluation with use of fast-spin-echo imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998; 80: 1276–1284.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Yoshioka H, Stevens K, Hargreaves BA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage of the knee: comparison between fat-suppressed three-dimensional SPGR imaging, fat-suppressed FSE imaging, and fat-suppressed three-dimensional DEFT imaging, and correlation with arthroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004; 20: 857–864.CrossRef Yoshioka H, Stevens K, Hargreaves BA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage of the knee: comparison between fat-suppressed three-dimensional SPGR imaging, fat-suppressed FSE imaging, and fat-suppressed three-dimensional DEFT imaging, and correlation with arthroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004; 20: 857–864.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Quinn SF, Brown TF. Meniscal tears diagnosed with MR imaging versus arthroscopy: how reliable a standard is arthroscopy? Radiology. 1991; 181: 843–847.CrossRef Quinn SF, Brown TF. Meniscal tears diagnosed with MR imaging versus arthroscopy: how reliable a standard is arthroscopy? Radiology. 1991; 181: 843–847.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Morin WD, Steadman JR. Arthroscopic assessment of the posterior compartments of the knee via the intercondylar notch: the arthroscopist's field of view. Arthroscopy. 1993; 9: 284–290.CrossRef Morin WD, Steadman JR. Arthroscopic assessment of the posterior compartments of the knee via the intercondylar notch: the arthroscopist's field of view. Arthroscopy. 1993; 9: 284–290.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Justice WW, Quinn SF. Error patterns in the MR imaging evaluation of menisci of the knee. Radiology. 1995; 196: 617–621.CrossRef Justice WW, Quinn SF. Error patterns in the MR imaging evaluation of menisci of the knee. Radiology. 1995; 196: 617–621.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Lutterbey G, Behrends K, Falkenhausen MV, et al. Is the body-coil at 3 Tesla feasible for the MRI evaluation of the painful knee? A comparative study. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 503–508.CrossRef Lutterbey G, Behrends K, Falkenhausen MV, et al. Is the body-coil at 3 Tesla feasible for the MRI evaluation of the painful knee? A comparative study. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 503–508.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Schoth F, Kraemer N, Niendorf T, Hohl C, Gunther RW, Krombach GA. Comparison of image quality in magnetic resonance imaging of the knee at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla using 32-channel receiver coils. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18: 2258–2264.CrossRef Schoth F, Kraemer N, Niendorf T, Hohl C, Gunther RW, Krombach GA. Comparison of image quality in magnetic resonance imaging of the knee at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla using 32-channel receiver coils. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18: 2258–2264.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparative study of imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T of the knee
Authors
Scott Wong
Lynne Steinbach
Jian Zhao
Christoph Stehling
C. Benjamin Ma
Thomas M. Link
Publication date
01-08-2009
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Skeletal Radiology / Issue 8/2009
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-009-0683-0

Other articles of this Issue 8/2009

Skeletal Radiology 8/2009 Go to the issue