• Christina A Chen, Richard Kijowski, Lauren M Shapiro, Michael J Tuite, Kirkland W Davis, Jessica L Klaers, Walter F Block, Scott B Reeder, and Garry E Gold.
• Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
• J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Jul 1; 32 (1): 173-83.

PurposeTo compare six new three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance (MR) methods for evaluating knee cartilage at 3.0T.Materials And MethodsWe compared: fast-spin-echo cube (FSE-Cube), vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction balanced steady-state free precession (VIPR-bSSFP), iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation combined with spoiled gradient echo (IDEAL-SPGR) and gradient echo (IDEAL-GRASS), multiecho in steady-state acquisition (MENSA), and coherent oscillatory state acquisition for manipulation of image contrast (COSMIC). Five-minute sequences were performed twice on 10 healthy volunteers and once on five osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured from the volunteers. Images of the five volunteers and the five OA patients were ranked on tissue contrast, articular surface clarity, reformat quality, and lesion conspicuity. FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP were compared to IDEAL-SPGR for cartilage volume measurements.ResultsFSE-Cube had top rankings for lesion conspicuity, overall SNR, and CNR (P < 0.02). VIPR-bSSFP had top rankings in tissue contrast and articular surface clarity. VIPR and FSE-Cube tied for best in reformatting ability. FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP compared favorably to IDEAL-SPGR in accuracy and precision of cartilage volume measurements.ConclusionFSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP produce high image quality with accurate volume measurement of knee cartilage.(c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

21 keywords...

hide…