دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

New-Generation 0.55 T MRI of the Knee-Initial Clinical Experience and Comparison With 3 T MRI.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: New-Generation 0.55 T MRI of the Knee-Initial Clinical Experience and Comparison With 3 T MRI.
المؤلفون: Donners R; From the Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel (R.D., J.V., M.B., F.S., M.O., D.H., H.-C.B.), Basel, Switzerland; and Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and Breast Center St. Anna (A.G.), Lucerne, Switzerland., Vosshenrich J, Gutzeit A, Bach M, Schlicht F, Obmann MM, Harder D, Breit HC
المصدر: Investigative radiology [Invest Radiol] 2024 Apr 01; Vol. 59 (4), pp. 298-305. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Sep 19.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0045377 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1536-0210 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00209996 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Invest Radiol Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: 1998- : Hagerstown, MD : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Original Publication: Philadelphia.
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Popliteal Cyst*/pathology , Knee Injuries*/diagnostic imaging , Knee Injuries*/pathology, Humans ; Female ; Adult ; Prospective Studies ; Knee Joint/diagnostic imaging ; Knee Joint/pathology ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods
مستخلص: Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the detection rate of and reader confidence in 0.55 T knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings with 3 T knee MRI in patients with acute trauma and knee pain.
Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, 0.55 T and 3 T knee MRI of 25 symptomatic patients (11 women; median age, 38 years) with suspected internal derangement of the knee was obtained in 1 setting. On the 0.55 T system, a commercially available deep learning image reconstruction algorithm was used (Deep Resolve Gain and Deep Resolve Sharp; Siemens Healthineers), which was not available on the 3 T system. Two board-certified radiologists reviewed all images independently and graded image quality parameters, noted MRI findings and their respective reporting confidence level for the presence or absence, as well as graded the bone, cartilage, meniscus, ligament, and tendon lesions. Image quality and reader confidence levels were compared ( P < 0.05 = significant), and clinical findings were correlated between 0.55 T and 3 T MRI by calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results: Image quality was rated higher at 3 T compared with 0.55 T studies (each P ≤ 0.017). Agreement between 0.55 T and 3 T MRI for the detection and grading of bone marrow edema and fractures, ligament and tendon lesions, high-grade meniscus and cartilage lesions, Baker cysts, and joint effusions was perfect for both readers. Overall identification and grading of cartilage and meniscal lesions showed good agreement between high- and low-field MRI (each ICC > 0.76), with lower agreement for low-grade cartilage (ICC = 0.77) and meniscus lesions (ICC = 0.49). There was no difference in readers' confidence levels for reporting lesions of bone, ligaments, tendons, Baker cysts, and joint effusions between 0.55 T and 3 T (each P > 0.157). Reader reporting confidence was higher for cartilage and meniscal lesions at 3 T (each P < 0.041).
Conclusions: New-generation 0.55 T knee MRI, with deep learning-aided image reconstruction, allows for reliable detection and grading of joint lesions in symptomatic patients, but it showed limited accuracy and reader confidence for low-grade cartilage and meniscal lesions in comparison with 3 T MRI.
Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
(Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)
References: Runge VM, Heverhagen JT. The clinical utility of magnetic resonance imaging according to field strength, specifically addressing the breadth of current state-of-the-art systems, which include 0.55 T, 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T. Invest Radiol . 2022;57:1–12.
Heiss R, Nagel AM, Laun FB, et al. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging: a new generation of breakthrough technology in clinical imaging. Invest Radiol . 2021;56:726–733.
Hori M, Hagiwara A, Goto M, et al. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging: its history and renaissance. Invest Radiol . 2021;56:669–679.
Arnold TC, Freeman CW, Litt B, et al. Low-field MRI: clinical promise and challenges. J Magn Reson Imaging . 2023;57:25–44.
Hammernik K, Schlemper J, Qin C, et al. Systematic evaluation of iterative deep neural networks for fast parallel MRI reconstruction with sensitivity-weighted coil combination. Magn Reson Med . 2021;86:1859–1872.
Knoll F, Hammernik K, Zhang C, et al. Deep-learning methods for parallel magnetic resonance imaging reconstruction: a survey of the current approaches, trends, and issues. IEEE Signal Process Mag . 2020;37:128–140.
Breit HC, Vosshenrich J, Clauss M, et al. Visual and quantitative assessment of hip implant-related metal artifacts at low field MRI: a phantom study comparing a 0.55-T system with 1.5-T and 3-T systems. Eur Radiol Exp . 2023;7:5.
Rusche T, Vosshenrich J, Winkel DJ, et al. More space, less noise-new-generation low-field magnetic resonance imaging systems can improve patient comfort: a prospective 0.55T–1.5T-scanner comparison. J Clin Med . 2022;11:6705.
Vosshenrich J, Breit HC, Bach M, et al. Economic aspects of low-field magnetic resonance imaging : acquisition, installation, and maintenance costs of 0.55 T systems [in German]. Radiologe . 2022;62:400–404.
Recht MP, Goodwin DW, Winalski CS, et al. MRI of articular cartilage: revisiting current status and future directions. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2005;185:899–914.
Cheng Q, Zhao FC. Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating lesions of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA-compliant article). Medicine (Baltimore) . 2018;97:e12401.
Pazahr S, Nanz D, Sutter R. 7 T musculoskeletal MRI: fundamentals and clinical implementation. Invest Radiol . 2023;58:88–98.
Palmer W, Bancroft L, Bonar F, et al. Glossary of terms for musculoskeletal radiology. Skeletal Radiol . 2020;49(Suppl 1):1–33.
Brittberg M, Winalski CS. Evaluation of cartilage injuries and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2003;85-A(Suppl 2):58–69.
Lopez Schmidt I, Haag N, Shahzadi I, et al. Diagnostic image quality of a low-field (0.55T) knee MRI protocol using deep learning image reconstruction compared with a standard (1.5T) knee MRI protocol. J Clin Med . 2023;12:1916.
Wong S, Steinbach L, Zhao J, et al. Comparative study of imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T of the knee. Skeletal Radiol . 2009;38:761–769.
Kijowski R, Blankenbaker DG, Davis KW, et al. Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. Radiology . 2009;250:839–848.
Leigheb M, Guzzardi G, Barini M, et al. Role of low field MRI in detecting knee lesions. Acta Biomed . 2018;90(1-S):116–122.
Kladny B, Glückert K, Swoboda B, et al. Comparison of low-field (0.2 tesla) and high-field (1.5 tesla) magnetic resonance imaging of the knee joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg . 1995;114:281–286.
Lee CS, Davis SM, McGroder C, et al. Analysis of low-field magnetic resonance imaging scanners for evaluation of knee pathology based on arthroscopy. Orthop J Sports Med . 2013;1:2325967113513423.
Riel KA, Kersting-Sommerhoff B, Reinisch M, et al. Prospective comparison of ARTOSCAN-MRI and arthroscopy in knee injuries [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb . 1996;134:430–434.
Del Grande F, Rashidi A, Luna R, et al. Five-minute five-sequence knee MRI using combined simultaneous multislice and parallel imaging acceleration: comparison with 10-minute parallel imaging knee MRI. Radiology . 2021;299:635–646.
Fritz J, Guggenberger R, Del Grande F. Rapid musculoskeletal MRI in 2021: clinical application of advanced accelerated techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2021;216:718–733.
deSouza NM, Winfield JM, Waterton JC, et al. Implementing diffusion-weighted MRI for body imaging in prospective multicentre trials: current considerations and future perspectives. Eur Radiol . 2018;28:1118–1131.
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20230925 Date Completed: 20240311 Latest Revision: 20240621
رمز التحديث: 20240622
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000001016
PMID: 37747455
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1536-0210
DOI:10.1097/RLI.0000000000001016