Comparative study of imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T of the knee

Skeletal Radiology

Volumn 38, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 761-769

  Wong, Scott ^a,b   Steinbach, Lynne ^a   Zhao, Jian ^a   Stehling, Christoph ^a,c   Ma, C Benjamin ^a   Link, Thomas M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Comparative MRI; High field imaging; Knee studies; MRI; Sequences 3.0 T imaging

Indexed keywords

FAT;

ADULT; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CHONDROPATHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; KNEE; KNEE ARTHROSCOPY; KNEE DISEASE; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARAMETER; PATHOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STUDENT T TEST;

ADULT; FEMALE; FRACTURES, CARTILAGE; HUMANS; KNEE INJURIES; KNEE JOINT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 68249116531     PISSN: 03642348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00256-009-0683-0     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. AA De Smet R Mukherjee 2008 Clinical, MRI, and arthroscopic findings associated with failure to diagnose a lateral meniscal tear on knee MRI AJR Am J Roentgenol 190 22 26
2. WC Huysse KL Verstraete 2008 Health technology assessment of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee Eur J Radiol 65 190 193
3. TM Link R Stahl K Woertler 2007 Cartilage imaging: motivation, techniques, current and future significance Eur Radiol 17 1135 1146 (Pubitemid 46691942)
4. JG Craig L Go J Blechinger 2005 Three-tesla imaging of the knee: initial experience Skeletal Radiol 34 453 461 (Pubitemid 41086345)
5. MD Shapiro T Magee D Williams R Ramnath JS Ross 2004 The time for 3 T clinical imaging is now AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25 1628 1629
6. RR Ramnath 2006 3 T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system (Part I): considerations, coils, and challenges Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 14 27 40 (Pubitemid 43363396)
7. JS Bauer C Barr TD Henning 2008 Magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle at 3.0 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla in human cadaver specimens with artificially created lesions of cartilage and ligaments Invest Radiol 43 604 611
8. JN Masi CA Sell C Phan 2005 Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model Radiology 236 140 150 (Pubitemid 40853306)
9. R Kijowski DG Blankenbaker KW Davis K Shinki LD Kaplan AA De Smet 2009 Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint Radiology 250 839 848
10. T Magee 2007 Three-tesla MR imaging of the knee Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 15 125 132 (Pubitemid 46705558)
11. T Magee D Williams 2006 3.0-T MRI of meniscal tears AJR Am J Roentgenol 187 371 375 (Pubitemid 44150531)
12. RR Ramnath T Magee N Wasudev R Murrah 2006 Accuracy of 3-T MRI using fast spin-echo technique to detect meniscal tears of the knee AJR Am J Roentgenol 187 221 225 (Pubitemid 46100174)
13. MP Recht DW Piraino GA Paletta JP Schils GH Belhobek 1996 Accuracy of fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo FLASH MR imaging in the detection of patellofemoral articular cartilage abnormalities Radiology 198 209 212 (Pubitemid 26008266)
14. C Barr JS Bauer D Malfair 2007 MR imaging of the ankle at 3 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla: protocol optimization and application to cartilage, ligament and tendon pathology in cadaver specimens Eur Radiol 17 1518 1528 (Pubitemid 46767600)
15. F Fischbach H Bruhn F Unterhauser 2005 Magnetic resonance imaging of hyaline cartilage defects at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of medium T2-weighted fast spin echo, T1-weighted two-dimensional and three-dimensional gradient echo pulse sequences Acta Radiol 46 67 73
16. TM Link CA Sell JN Masi 2006 3.0 vs 1.5 MRI in the detection of focal cartilage pathology-ROC analysis in an experimental model Osteoarthritis Cartilage 14 63 70 (Pubitemid 43034090)
17. Kijowski R, Blankenbaker D, Davis K, Shinki K, Kaplan L, De Smet AA. Comparison of 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging systems for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. In: RSNA. Chicago, 2007; VS21-14.
18. GE Gold TR McCauley ML Gray DG Disler 2003 What's new in cartilage? Radiographics 23 1227 1242 (Pubitemid 37414737)
19. HG Potter LF Foo 2006 Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage: trauma, degeneration, and repair Am J Sports Med 34 661 677
20. SR Duc CW Pfirrmann MR Schmid 2007 Articular cartilage defects detected with 3D water-excitation true FISP: prospective comparison with sequences commonly used for knee imaging Radiology 245 216 223 (Pubitemid 47417805)
21. HG Potter JM Linklater AA Allen JA Hannafin SB Haas 1998 Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage in the knee. An evaluation with use of fast-spin-echo imaging J Bone Joint Surg Am 80 1276 1284 (Pubitemid 28443350)
22. H Yoshioka K Stevens BA Hargreaves 2004 Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage of the knee: comparison between fat-suppressed three-dimensional SPGR imaging, fat-suppressed FSE imaging, and fat-suppressed three-dimensional DEFT imaging, and correlation with arthroscopy J Magn Reson Imaging 20 857 864 (Pubitemid 39426083)
23. SF Quinn TF Brown 1991 Meniscal tears diagnosed with MR imaging versus arthroscopy: how reliable a standard is arthroscopy? Radiology 181 843 847
24. WD Morin JR Steadman 1993 Arthroscopic assessment of the posterior compartments of the knee via the intercondylar notch: the arthroscopist's field of view Arthroscopy 9 284 290 (Pubitemid 23181916)
25. WW Justice SF Quinn 1995 Error patterns in the MR imaging evaluation of menisci of the knee Radiology 196 617 621
26. G Lutterbey K Behrends MV Falkenhausen 2007 Is the body-coil at 3 Tesla feasible for the MRI evaluation of the painful knee? A comparative study Eur Radiol 17 503 508 (Pubitemid 46140322)
27. F Schoth N Kraemer T Niendorf C Hohl RW Gunther GA Krombach 2008 Comparison of image quality in magnetic resonance imaging of the knee at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla using 32-channel receiver coils Eur Radiol 18 2258 2264