• Chul Hee Han, Hee Jin Park, So Yeon Lee, Eun Chul Chung, Seon Hyeong Choi, Ji Sup Yun, and Myung Ho Rho.
• Department of Radiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
• Acta Radiol. 2015 Dec 1; 56 (12): 1479-86.

BackgroundMany two-dimensional (2D) morphologic cartilage imaging sequences have disadvantages such as long acquisition time, inadequate spatial resolution, suboptimal tissue contrast, and image degradation secondary to artifacts. IDEAL imaging can overcome these disadvantages.PurposeTo compare sound-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and quality of two different methods of imaging that include IDEAL 3D SPGR and 3.0-T FSE T2 fat saturation (FS) imaging and to evaluate the utility of IDEAL 3D SPGR for knee joint imaging.Material And MethodsSNR and CNR of the patellar and femoral cartilages were measured and calculated. Two radiologists performed subjective scoring of all images for three measures: general image quality, FS, and cartilage evaluation. SNR and CNR values were compared by paired Student's t-tests.ResultsMean SNRs of patellar and femoral cartilages were 90% and 66% higher, respectively, for IDEAL 3D SPGR. CNRs of patellar cartilages and joint fluids were 2.4 times higher for FSE T2 FS, and CNR between the femoral cartilage and joint fluid was 2.2 times higher for FSE T2 FS. General image quality and FS were superior using FSE T2 FS compared to those of IDEAL 3D SPGR imaging according to both readers, while cartilage evaluation was superior using IDEAL 3D SPGR. Additionally, cartilage injuries were more prominent in IDEAL 3D SPGR than in FSE T2FS according to both readers.ConclusionIDEAL 3D SPGR images show excellent visualization of patellar and femoral cartilages in 3.0 T and can compensate for the weaknesses of FSE T2 FS in the evaluation of cartilage injuries.© The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2014.

28 keywords...

hide…