Weckbach Sabine, Mendlik Thomas, Horger Wilhelm, Wagner Susi, Reiser Maximilian F, Glaser Christian
Department of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich-Grosshadern, Germany.
Invest Radiol. 2006 Feb;41(2):189-97. doi: 10.1097/01.rli.0000195837.32417.f9.
We sought to compare patellar cartilage volume and thickness measurement between 3D-FLASH and 3D-True fast imaging with steady-state precession (FISP) image data at 3.0 T.
One knee each of 6 healthy adults was examined by axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed with a 3D-fast flow angle shot (FLASH) water-excitation sequence and a 3D-TrueFISP water-excitation sequence (spatial resolution 0.31 x 0.31 x 1.5 mm3). Patellar cartilage volume and mean/maximum thickness were calculated. Intraindividual/average reproducibility and interindividual variability were determined from 3 consecutive data sets acquired for each volunteer and sequence.
Patellar cartilage volume and thickness as well as reproducibility was slightly but not significantly lower for the 3D-TrueFISP data than for the 3D-FLASH data (volume: 3.4-6.3 mL (3D-FLASH)/3.1-6.0 mL (3D-TrueFISP), average reproducibility 1.8% (3D-FLASH)/4.4% (3D-TrueFISP); mean thickness: 2.1-2.8 mm (3D-FLASH)/1.9-2.6 mm (3D-TrueFISP), average reproducibility 2.8% (3D-FLASH)/3.8% (3D-TrueFISP); maximum thickness: 4.7-6.6 mm (3D-FLASH)/4.5-6.2 mm (3D-TrueFISP), average reproducibility 2.6% (3D-FLASH)/4.1% (3D-TrueFISP)). Interindividual variability was comparable for both sequence techniques.
At 3.0 T, the 3D-FLASH sequence showed tendency to be slightly superior to the 3D-TrueFISP sequence considering robust and valid assessment of quantitative cartilage parameters in young healthy adults, although there was found no significant statistical difference between both imaging techniques. However, in patients suffering from osteoarthritis (OA), the 3D-TrueFISP sequence might prove advantageous for monitoring of disease progression and evaluation of therapy success, particularly because the substantially higher signal to noise ratio/contrast to noise ratio values might allow for higher spatial resolution and hence for improvement of the accuracy of segmentation process especially at the articular surface.
我们试图比较3.0T场强下三维快速小角度激发（3D-FLASH）序列和三维稳态进动快速成像（3D-True FISP）序列图像数据测量髌骨软骨体积和厚度的差异。
对6名健康成年人的单膝关节进行检查，采用三维快速流动角激发（FLASH）水激励序列和三维TrueFISP水激励序列（空间分辨率0.31×0.31×1.5mm³）行轴向磁共振成像（MRI）检查。计算髌骨软骨体积及平均/最大厚度。根据为每位志愿者和序列采集的3组连续数据集确定个体内/平均可重复性和个体间变异性。
三维TrueFISP数据的髌骨软骨体积、厚度以及可重复性略低于三维FLASH数据，但差异无统计学意义（体积：3.4-6.3mL（三维FLASH）/3.1-6.0mL（三维TrueFISP），平均可重复性1.8%（三维FLASH）/4.4%（三维TrueFISP）；平均厚度：2.1-2.8mm（三维FLASH）/1.9-2.6mm（三维TrueFISP），平均可重复性2.8%（三维FLASH）/3.8%（三维TrueFISP）；最大厚度：4.7-6.6mm（三维FLASH）/4.5-6.2mm（三维TrueFISP），平均可重复性2.6%（三维FLASH）/4.1%（三维TrueFISP））。两种序列技术的个体间变异性相当。
在3.0T场强下，对于年轻健康成年人定量软骨参数的可靠有效评估，三维FLASH序列有略优于三维TrueFISP序列的趋势，尽管两种成像技术之间未发现显著统计学差异。然而，在骨关节炎（OA）患者中，三维TrueFISP序列可能有利于监测疾病进展和评估治疗效果，特别是因为其显著更高的信噪比/对比噪声比值可能允许更高的空间分辨率，从而提高分割过程的准确性，尤其是在关节表面。
