| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Technical Developments |
1 From the Departments of Radiology (G.E.G., S.S.V., C.F.B.), Electrical Engineering (B.A.H.), and Mechanical Engineering (J.D.W.), Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, SO-68B, Stanford, CA 94305-5105; and GE Applied Sciences West Laboratory, Menlo Park, Calif (A.S.S., J.H.B.). Received December 23, 2004; revision requested February 23, 2005; revision received March 21; final version accepted April 15. Supported by NIH grant EB002524-01 and the Whitaker Foundation. Address correspondence to G.E.G. (e-mail: gold{at}stanford.edu).
Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study, whose purpose was to prospectively compare three magnetic resonance (MR) imaging techniques—fluctuating equilibrium, three-dimensional (3D) spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state (SPGR), and two-dimensional (2D) fast spin echo (SE)—for evaluating articular cartilage in the knee. The study cohort consisted of 10 healthy volunteers (four men, six women; age range, 26–42 years). Cartilage signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), SNR efficiency, cartilage-fluid contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), CNR efficiency, image quality, cartilage visibility, and fat suppression were compared. Cartilage volume was compared for the fluctuating equilibrium and 3D SPGR techniques. Compared with 3D SPGR and 2D fast SE, fluctuating equilibrium yielded the highest cartilage SNR efficiency and cartilage-fluid CNR efficiency (P < .01 for both). Image quality was similar with all sequences. Fluctuating equilibrium imaging yielded higher cartilage visibility than did 2D fast SE imaging (P <. 01) but worse fat suppression than did 3D SPGR and 2D fast SE imaging (P < .04). Cartilage volume measurements with fluctuating equilibrium and 3D SPGR were similar. Fluctuating equilibrium MR imaging is a promising method for evaluating articular cartilage in the knee.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. Kijowski, D. G. Blankenbaker, J. L. Klaers, K. Shinki, A. A. De Smet, and W. F. Block Vastly Undersampled Isotropic Projection Steady-State Free Precession Imaging of the Knee: Diagnostic Performance Compared with Conventional MR Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 185 - 194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. E. Anderson, B. J. Ellis, C. L. Peters, and J. A. Weiss Cartilage Thickness: Factors Influencing Multidetector CT Measurements in a Phantom Study Radiology, January 1, 2008; 246(1): 133 - 141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Duc, C. W. A. Pfirrmann, M. R. Schmid, M. Zanetti, P. P. Koch, F. Kalberer, and J. Hodler Articular Cartilage Defects Detected with 3D Water-Excitation True FISP: Prospective Comparison with Sequences Commonly Used for Knee Imaging Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 216 - 223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. E. Gold, R. F. Busse, C. Beehler, E. Han, A. C. S. Brau, P. J. Beatty, and C. F. Beaulieu Isotropic MRI of the Knee with 3D Fast Spin-Echo Extended Echo-Train Acquisition (XETA): Initial Experience Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2007; 188(5): 1287 - 1293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. E. Gold, S. B. Reeder, H. Yu, P. Kornaat, A. S. Shimakawa, J. W. Johnson, N. J. Pelc, C. F. Beaulieu, and J. H. Brittain Articular Cartilage of the Knee: Rapid Three-dimensional MR Imaging at 3.0 T with IDEAL Balanced Steady-State Free Precession--Initial Experience Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 546 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
