Top

Published in:

01-06-2007 | Experimental

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

Authors: Cameron Barr, Jan S. Bauer, David Malfair, Benjamin Ma, Tobias D. Henning, Lynne Steinbach, Thomas M. Link

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2007

Abstract

The objective of this study was to optimize ankle joint MR imaging in volunteers at 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0 T, and to compare these optimized sequences concerning image quality and performance in assessing cartilage, ligament and tendon pathology in fresh human cadaver specimens. Initially our clinical ankle protocol consisting of T1-weighted (-w), fat-saturated (fs) T2-w, and short τ inversion-recovery fast spinecho (FSE) sequences was optimized at 1.5 T and 3.0 T by two radiologists. For dedicated cartilage imaging, fs-intermediate (IM)-w FSE, fs spoiled gradient echo, and balanced free-precession steady-state sequences were optimized. Using the optimized sequences, thirteen cadaver ankle joints were imaged. Four radiologists independently assessed these images concerning image quality and pathology. All radiologists consistently rated image quality higher at 3.0 T (all sequences p<0.05). For detecting cartilage pathology, diagnostic performance was significantly higher at 3.0 T (ROC-values up to 0.93 vs. 0.77; p<0.05); the fs-IM FSE sequence showed highest values among the different sequences. Average sensitivity for detecting tendon pathology was 63% at 3.0 T vs. 41% at 1.5 T and was significantly higher at 3.0 T for 2 out of 4 radiologists (p<0.05). Compared to 1.5 T, imaging of the ankle joint at 3.0 T significantly improved image quality and diagnostic performance in assessing cartilage pathology.

Baumhauer JF, Nawoczenski DA, DiGiovanni BF, Flemister AS (2004) Ankle pain and peroneal tendon pathology. Clin Sports Med 23:21–34PubMedCrossRef

Baker JM, Ouzounian TJ (2000) Complex ankle instability. Foot Ankle Clin 5:887–896PubMed

Recht MP, Donley BG (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging of the foot and ankle. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 9:187–199PubMed

Kerr R (2002) MRI of soft tissue disorders of the ankle. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 19:285–307PubMedCrossRef

Masala S, Fiori R, Marinetti A, Uccioli L, Giurato L, Simonetti G (2003) Imaging the ankle and foot and using magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2:217–232PubMedCrossRef

Moshirfar A, Campbell JT, Khanna AJ, Byank RP, Bluemke DA, Wenz JF Sr (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle: techniques and spectrum of disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(Suppl 4):7–19PubMed

Bencardino JT, Rosenberg ZS (2001) Normal variants and pitfalls in MR imaging of the ankle and foot. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 9:447–463PubMed

Lamm BM, Myers DT, Dombek M, Mendicino RW, Catanzariti AR, Saltrick K (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging and surgical correlation of peroneus brevis tears. J Foot Ankle Surg 43:30–36PubMedCrossRef

Pfirrmann CW, Zanetti M, Hodler J (2002) Joint magnetic resonance imaging: normal variants and pitfalls related to sports injury. Radiol Clin North Am 40:167–180PubMedCrossRef

10.

El-Khoury GY, Alliman KJ, Lundberg HJ, Rudert MJ, Brown TD, Saltzman CL (2004) Cartilage thickness in cadaveric ankles: measurement with double-contrast multi-detector row CT arthrography versus MR imaging. Radiology 233:768–773PubMedCrossRef

11.

Ba-Ssalamah A, Schibany N, Puig S, Herneth AM, Noebauer-Huhmann IM, Trattnig S (2002) Imaging articular cartilage defects in the ankle joint with 3D fat-suppressed echo planar imaging: comparison with conventional 3D fat-suppressed gradient echo imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:209–216PubMedCrossRef

12.

Gutberlet M, Schwinge K, Freyhardt P, Spors B, Grothoff M, Denecke T, Ludemann L, Noeske R, Niendorf T, Felix R (2005) Influence of high magnetic field strengths and parallel acquisition strategies on image quality in cardiac 2D CINE magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5 T vs. 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 15:1586–1597. DOI 10.1007/s00330-005-2768-z PubMedCrossRef

13.

Koops A, Ittrich H, Petri S, Priest A, Stork A, Lockemann U, Adam G, Weber C (2006) Multicontrast-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of atherosclerotic plaques at 3.0 and 1.5 Tesla: ex-vivo comparison with histopathologic correlation. Eur Radiol. DOI 10.1007/s00330-006-0265-7

14.

Bachmann R, Reilmann R, Schwindt W, Kugel H, Heindel W, Kramer S (2006) FLAIR imaging for multiple sclerosis: a comparative MR study at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 16:915–921. DOI 10.1007/s00330-005-0070-8 PubMedCrossRef

15.

Gold GE, Suh B, Sawyer-Glover A, Beaulieu C (2004) Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1479–1486PubMed

16.

Gold GE, Han E, Stainsby J, Wright G, Brittain J, Beaulieu C (2004) Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:343–351PubMed

17.

Kornaat PR, Reeder SB, Koo S, Brittain JH, Yu H, Andriacchi TP, Gold GE (2005) MR imaging of articular cartilage at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of SPGR and SSFP sequences. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 13:338–344PubMedCrossRef

18.

Masi JN, Sell CA, Phan C, Han E, Newitt D, Steinbach L, Majumdar S, Link TM (2005) Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model. Radiology 236:140–150PubMedCrossRef

19.

Fischbach F, Bruhn H, Unterhauser F, Ricke J, Wieners G, Felix R, Weiler A, Schroder RJ (2005) 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 46:67–73PubMedCrossRef

20.

Hargreaves BA, Gold GE, Beaulieu CF, Vasanawala SS, Nishimura DG, Pauly JM (2003) Comparison of new sequences for high-resolution cartilage imaging. Magn Reson Med 49:700–709PubMedCrossRef

21.

Noyes FR, Stabler CL (1989) A system for grading articular cartilage lesions at arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 17:505–513PubMedCrossRef

22.

Brandes CB, Smith RW (2000) Characterization of patients with primary peroneus longus tendinopathy: a review of twenty-two cases. Foot Ankle Int 21:462–468PubMed

23.

Sitler DF, Amendola A (2001) MR Imaging of the Foot and Ankle: The Orthopedic Surgeon's Perspective. In: Spouge AR, Pope TL (eds) Practical MRI of the Foot and Ankle. CRC Press, Boca Raton London New York Washington DC, pp 271–296

24.

Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36PubMed

25.

Vasanawala SS, Hargreaves BA, Pauly JM, Nishimura DG, Beaulieu CF, Gold GE (2005) Rapid musculoskeletal MRI with phase-sensitive steady-state free precession: comparison with routine knee MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1450–1455PubMed

26.

Schmitt F, Grosu D, Mohr C, Purdy D, Salem K, Scott KT, Stoeckel B (2004) [3 Tesla MRI: successful results with higher field strengths]. Radiologe 44:31–47PubMedCrossRef

27.

Schibany N, Ba-Ssalamah A, Marlovits S, Mlynarik V, Nobauer-Huhmann IM, Striessnig G, Shodjai-Baghini M, Heinze G, Trattnig S (2005) Impact of high field (3.0 T) magnetic resonance imaging on diagnosis of osteochondral defects in the ankle joint. Eur J Radiol 55:283–288PubMedCrossRef

28.

Collins CM, Smith MB (2001) Signal-to-noise ratio and absorbed power as functions of main magnetic field strength, and definition of “90 degrees ” RF pulse for the head in the birdcage coil. Magn Reson Med 45:684–691PubMedCrossRef

29.

Recht M, Bobic V, Burstein D, Disler D, Gold G, Gray M, Kramer J, Lang P, McCauley T, Winalski C (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage. Clin Orthop Relat Res:S379–S396

30.

Tan TC, Wilcox DM, Frank L, Shih C, Trudell DJ, Sartoris DJ, Resnick D (1996) MR imaging of articular cartilage in the ankle: comparison of available imaging sequences and methods of measurement in cadavers. Skeletal Radiol 25:749–755PubMedCrossRef

31.

Sobel M, Bohne WH, Markisz JA (1991) Cadaver correlation of peroneal tendon changes with magnetic resonance imaging. Foot Ankle 11:384–388PubMed

Title: 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
Authors: Cameron Barr
Jan S. Bauer
David Malfair
Benjamin Ma
Tobias D. Henning
Lynne Steinbach
Thomas M. Link
Publication date: 01-06-2007
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 6/2007
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0446-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2007

Characterization of myocardial viability using MR and CT imaging

The pancreas in β-thalassemia major: MR imaging features and correlation with iron stores and glucose disturbunces

MR arthrography in calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: diagnostic performance and pitfalls

Utility of dark-lumen MR colonography for the assessment of extra-colonic organs

Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable?

A pregnant lady with intermittent vaginal bleeding (2007: 3b)