Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint.

PURPOSE To retrospectively compare the diagnostic performance of 1.5- and 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocols for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint in symptomatic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS This HIPAA-compliant study was performed with a waiver of informed consent from the institutional review board. The study group consisted of 200 symptomatic patients undergoing MR examination of the knee at 1.5 T (61 men, 39 women; mean age, 38.9 years) or 3.0 T (52 men, 48 women; mean age, 39.1 years), who also underwent subsequent arthroscopic knee surgery. All MR examinations consisted of multiplanar fast spin-echo sequences with similar tissue contrast at 1.5 and 3.0 T. All articular surfaces were graded at arthroscopy by using the Noyes classification system. Three musculoskeletal radiologists retrospectively and independently graded all articular surfaces seen at MR imaging by using a similar classification system. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 1.5- and 3.0-T MR protocols for detecting cartilage lesions were determined by using arthroscopy as the reference standard. The z test was used to compare sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values at 1.5 and 3.0 T. RESULTS For all readers combined, the respective sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MR imaging for detecting cartilage lesions were 69.3%, 78.0%, and 74.5% at 1.5 T (n = 241) and 70.5%, 85.9%, and 80.1% at 3.0 T (n = 226). The MR imaging protocol had significantly higher specificity and accuracy (P < .05) but not higher sensitivity (P = .73) for detecting cartilage lesions at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T. CONCLUSION A 3.0-T MR protocol has improved diagnostic performance for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint in symptomatic patients when compared with a 1.5-T protocol.

[1]  Thomas M. Link,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 , 2007, European Radiology.

[2]  Claudio Moraga,et al.  Knee chondral lesions: incidence and correlation between arthroscopic and magnetic resonance findings. , 2007, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[3]  Richard Kijowski,et al.  Evaluation of the articular cartilage of the knee joint with vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction steady‐state free precession imaging , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  Lennart Magnusson,et al.  Outcome and risk factors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a follow-up study of 948 patients. , 2005, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[5]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model. , 2005, Radiology.

[6]  Brian A Hargreaves,et al.  Driven equilibrium magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage: Initial clinical experience , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  T P Andriacchi,et al.  MR imaging of articular cartilage at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of SPGR and SSFP sequences. , 2005, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[8]  H. Bruhn,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of hyaline cartilage defects at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of medium T2‐weighted fast spin echo, T1‐weighted two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional gradient echo pulse sequences , 2005, Acta radiologica.

[9]  R. Schröder,et al.  Wertigkeit verschiedener MR-Sequenzen bei einer Feldstärke von 1,5- und 3,0 Tesla für die Analyse von Knorpeldefekten der Patella im Tiermodell , 2004 .

[10]  M. Englund,et al.  Risk factors for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis fifteen to twenty-two years after meniscectomy. , 2004, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[11]  Dwight G Nishimura,et al.  Fat‐suppressed steady‐state free precession imaging using phase detection , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[12]  Andreas Mohr,et al.  The value of water-excitation 3D FLASH and fat-saturated PDw TSE MR imaging for detecting and grading articular cartilage lesions of the knee , 2003, Skeletal Radiology.

[13]  T. Towheed.  Published meta-analyses of pharmacological therapies for osteoarthritis. , 2002, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[14]  A. Sonin,et al.  Grading articular cartilage of the knee using fast spin-echo proton density-weighted MR imaging without fat suppression. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  R. Jakob,et al.  Autologous Osteochondral Grafting in the Knee: Indication, Results, and Reflections , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  E. Arnold,et al.  Use of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate in the management of osteoarthritis. , 2001, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[17]  P. D. Di Cesare,et al.  Use of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate in the management of osteoarthritis. , 2001, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[18]  T J Mosher,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of superficial cartilage lesions: Role of contrast in lesion detection , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  H. Genant,et al.  Accuracy of T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR imaging with fat saturation in detecting cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with arthroscopy in 130 patients. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  H. Potter,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Articular Cartilage in the Knee. An Evaluation with Use of Fast-Spin-Echo Imaging* , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  R M Henkelman,et al.  Image resolution and signal-to-noise ratio requirements for MR imaging of degenerative cartilage. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  D G Disler,et al.  Fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo MR imaging of hyaline cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with standard MR imaging and arthroscopy. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  David Thomasson,et al.  Optimization of a dual echo in the steady state (DESS) free‐precession sequence for imaging cartilage , 1996, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[24]  D G Disler,et al.  Dynamic Evaluation of Exercising Leg Muscle in Healthy Subjects with Echo Planar MR Imaging: Work Rate and Total Work Determine Rate of T2 Change , 1995, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[25]  J. Szumowski,et al.  Chondromalacia patellae: fat-suppressed MR imaging. , 1994, Radiology.

[26]  C. Ohlsson,et al.  Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  C. Heron,et al.  Three-dimensional gradient-echo MR imaging of the knee: comparison with arthroscopy in 100 patients. , 1992, Radiology.

[28]  F. Noyes,et al.  A system for grading articular cartilage lesions at arthroscopy , 1989, The American journal of sports medicine.

[29]  R. Henkelman.  Measurement of signal intensities in the presence of noise in MR images. , 1985, Medical physics.

[30]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[31]  S. Majumdar,et al.  3.0 vs 1.5 T MRI in the detection of focal cartilage pathology--ROC analysis in an experimental model. , 2006, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[32]  H. Bruhn,et al.  [Value of various MR sequences using 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla in analyzing cartilaginous defects of the patella in an animal model]. , 2004, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[33]  T. Schnitzer,et al.  Severity of articular cartilage abnormality in patients with osteoarthritis: evaluation with fast spin-echo MR vs arthroscopy. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.