4.5 Article

Detecting ICRS grade 1 cartilage lesions in anterior cruciate ligament injury using T1ρ and T2 mapping

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 82, 期 9, 页码 1499-1505

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.038

关键词

Magnetic resonance imaging; T1 rho mapping; T2 mapping; Knee; Cartilage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to clarify the detectability of the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade 1 cartilage lesions in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-injured knees using T1 rho and T2 mapping. Materials and Methods: We performed preoperative T1 rho and T2 mapping and 3D gradient-echo with water-selective excitation (WATS) sequences on 37 subjects with ACL injuries. We determined the detectability on 3D WATS based on arthroscopic findings. The T1 rho and T2 values (ms) were measured in the regions of interest that were placed on the weight-bearing cartilage of the femoral condyle. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve based on these values was constructed using the arthroscopic findings as a reference standard. The evaluation of cartilage was carried out only in the weight-bearing cartilage. The cut-off values for determining the presence of a cartilage injury were determined using each ROC curve, and the detectability was calculated for the T1 rho and T2 mapping. Results: The cut-off values for the T1 rho and T2 were 41.6 and 41.2, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of T1 rho were 91.2% and 89.5%, respectively, while those of T2 were 76.5% and 81.6%, respectively. For the 3D WATS images, the same values were 58.8% and 78.9%, respectively. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that the T1 rho and T2 values were significantly higher for ICRS grade 1 cartilage lesions than for normal cartilage and that the two mappings were able to non-invasively detect ICRS grade 1 cartilage lesions in the ACL-injured knee with a higher detectability than were 3D WATS images. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据