Comparison of quantitative cartilage measurements acquired on two 3.0T MRI systems from different manufacturers

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 770-773

  Kornaat, Peter R ^a,b   Koo, Seungbum ^c   Andriacchi, Thomas P ^b,c,d   Bloem, Johan L ^a   Gold, Garry E ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Stanford University   (United States)

^d Palo Alto VA   (United States)

Author keywords

3.0T; Cartilage; Knee; MRI; Quantitative measurements

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CARTILAGE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICE; FEMALE; FEMUR CONDYLE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; KNEE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; THICKNESS; VOLUNTEER;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CARTILAGE, ARTICULAR; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETICS; MALE; REFERENCE VALUES;

EID: 33646187383     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20561     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Harris Jr ED. The bone and joint decade: a catalyst for progress. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:1969-1970.
2. Gold GE, McCauley TR, Gray ML, Disler DG. What's new in cartilage? Radiographics 2003;23:1227-1242.
3. Vincken PW, ter Braak BP, van Erkel AR, et al. Effectiveness of MR imaging in selection of patients for arthroscopy of the knee. Radiology 2002;223:739-746.
4. Eckstein F, Westhoff J, Sittek H, et al. In vivo reproducibility of three-dimensional cartilage volume and thickness measurements with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:593-597.
5. Eckstein F, Lemberger B, Gratzke C, et al. In vivo cartilage deformation after different types of activity and its dependence on physical training status. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:291-295.
6. Mosher TJ, Smith HE, Collins C, et al. Change in knee cartilage T2 at MR imaging after running: a feasibility study. Radiology 2005; 234:245-249.
7. Ernst RR, Anderson WA. Application of Fourier transform spectroscopy to magnetic resonance. Rev Sci Instrum 1966;37:93-102.
8. Gold GE, Han E, Stainsby J, Wright G, Brittain J, Beaulieu C. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:343-351.
9. Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D. Snakes: active contour models. Int J Comput Vision 1988;1:321-331.
10. Koo S, Alexander EJ, Gold GE, Giori NJ, Andriacchi TP. Morphology and thickness in tibial and femoral cartilage at the knee is influenced by the mechanics of walking. In: Proceedings of the ASME Summer Bioengineering Conference, Miami, FL, USA, 2003.
11. Koo S, Dixit AN, Alexander EJ, Andriacchi TP. A rule based approach to improve cartilage thickness measurement reproducibility from knee MRI. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics, Toledo, OH, USA, 2003.
12. Koo S, Kornaat PR, Garry GE, Andriacchi TP. Factors influencing the accuracy of articular cartilage thickness measurement from MRI. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics, Portland, OR, USA, 2004.
13. Morgan SR, Waterton JC, Maciewicz RA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging measurement of knee cartilage volume in a multicentre study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004;43:19-21.
14. Kornaat PR, Reeder SB, Koo S, et al. MR imaging of articular cartilage at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of SPGR and SSFP sequences. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005;13:338-344.