Magnetization transfer contrast and T2 mapping in the evaluation of cartilage 
repair tissue with 3T MRI

Welsch, GH; Trattnig, S; Scheffler, K; Szomonanyi , P; Quirbach, S; Merlovits, S; Domayer, S; Bieri, O; Mamisch, TC

doi:10.1002/jmri.21516

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Magnetization transfer contrast and T2 mapping in the evaluation of cartilage repair tissue with 3T MRI

MPS-Authors

There are no MPG-Authors in the publication available

External Resource

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmri.21516
(Publisher version)

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Welsch, G., Trattnig, S., Scheffler, K., Szomonanyi, P., Quirbach, S., Merlovits, S., et al. (2008). Magnetization transfer contrast and T2 mapping in the evaluation of cartilage repair tissue with 3T MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 28(4), 979-986. doi:10.1002/jmri.21516.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-C6A7-1

Abstract

Purpose
To use magnetization transfer (MT) imaging in the visualization of healthy articular cartilage and cartilage repair tissue after different cartilage repair procedures, and to assess global as well as zonal values and compare the results to T2-relaxation.
Materials and Methods
Thirty-four patients (17 after microfracture [MFX] and 17 after matrix-associated autologous cartilage transplantation [MACT]) were examined with 3T MRI. The MT ratio (MTR) was calculated from measurements with and without MT contrast. T2-values were evaluated using a multiecho, spin-echo approach. Global (full thickness of cartilage) and zonal (deep and superficial aspect) region-of-interest assessment of cartilage repair tissue and normal-appearing cartilage was performed.
Results
In patients after MFX and MACT, the global MTR of cartilage repair tissue was significantly lower compared to healthy cartilage. In contrast, using T2, cartilage repair tissue showed significantly lower T2 values only after MFX, whereas after MACT, global T2 values were comparable to healthy cartilage. For zonal evaluation, MTR and T2 showed a significant stratification within healthy cartilage, and T2 additionally within cartilage repair tissue after MACT.
Conclusion
MT imaging is capable and sensitive in the detection of differences between healthy cartilage and areas of cartilage repair and might be an additional tool in biochemical cartilage imaging. For both MTR and T2 mapping, zonal assessment is desirable.