Park Hee J, Lee So Y, Rho Myung H, Chung Eun C, Ahn Jin H, Park Jai H, Lee In S
1 Department of Radiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Br J Radiol. 2016 Jun;89(1062):20151074. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20151074. Epub 2016 Mar 23.
To compare the quality of two different imaging methods, three-point Dixon (mDixon) and fast spin-echo (FSE) T2 weighted image (T2WI) [and fat suppression (FS) T2WI], and to assess the utility of mDixon for the imaging of knee joint pathology.
This retrospective study included 66 patients who underwent both mDixon and FSE T2WI (and FS T2WI) of the knee joint. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the two sequences at the articular cartilage and ligament were measured. Two radiologists independently evaluated the anatomic identification score and diagnostic performances of the two sequences.
The mean SNRs and CNRs of the patellar cartilage, femoral cartilage and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) were significantly higher on T2WI and FS T2WI than on mDixon imaging, with the exception of the mean SNR of ACL on in-phase images. Most of the anatomic identification scores did not show significant differences, except for inferiorities of the in-phase mDixon in the evaluation of the cruciate ligament. There were no significant differences in sensitivity, specificity and accuracy between mDixon and T2WI regarding diagnostic performance.
mDixon images have equivalent anatomic identification ability with the exception of cruciate ligament delineation on in-phase images and have a diagnostic performance comparable with that of FSE T2WI for meniscal, cartilage and ligament injuries of the knee joint. There would be a net saving in time, if mDixon was the only sequence used.
The mDixon images have equivalent anatomic identification abilities, with the exception of cruciate ligament delineation on in-phase images and have a diagnostic performance comparable with that of FSE T2WI for meniscal, cartilage and ligament injuries of the knee joint.
比较两种不同成像方法——三点 Dixon 法(mDixon)和快速自旋回波(FSE)T2 加权成像(T2WI)[以及脂肪抑制(FS)T2WI]的图像质量,并评估 mDixon 法在膝关节病变成像中的应用价值。
这项回顾性研究纳入了 66 例接受膝关节 mDixon 法和 FSE T2WI(以及 FS T2WI)检查的患者。测量了两个序列在关节软骨和韧带处的信噪比(SNR)和对比噪声比(CNR)。两名放射科医生独立评估两个序列的解剖结构识别评分和诊断性能。
除 ACL 在同相位图像上的平均 SNR 外,T2WI 和 FS T2WI 上髌骨软骨、股骨软骨和前交叉韧带(ACL)的平均 SNR 和 CNR 均显著高于 mDixon 成像。除了同相位 mDixon 在评估交叉韧带方面的劣势外,大多数解剖结构识别评分没有显著差异。mDixon 法和 T2WI 在诊断性能方面的敏感性、特异性和准确性没有显著差异。
mDixon 图像除了在同相位图像上对交叉韧带的描绘外,具有同等的解剖结构识别能力,并且在膝关节半月板、软骨和韧带损伤的诊断性能上与 FSE T2WI 相当。如果仅使用 mDixon 序列,将节省时间。
mDixon 图像除了在同相位图像上对交叉韧带的描绘外,具有同等的解剖结构识别能力,并且在膝关节半月板、软骨和韧带损伤的诊断性能上与 FSE T2WI 相当。