Abstract
Background
Many two-dimensional (2D) morphologic cartilage imaging sequences have disadvantages such as long acquisition time, inadequate spatial resolution, suboptimal tissue contrast, and image degradation secondary to artifacts. IDEAL imaging can overcome these disadvantages.
Purpose
To compare sound-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and quality of two different methods of imaging that include IDEAL 3D SPGR and 3.0-T FSE T2 fat saturation (FS) imaging and to evaluate the utility of IDEAL 3D SPGR for knee joint imaging.
Material and Methods
SNR and CNR of the patellar and femoral cartilages were measured and calculated. Two radiologists performed subjective scoring of all images for three measures: general image quality, FS, and cartilage evaluation. SNR and CNR values were compared by paired Student’s t-tests.
Results
Mean SNRs of patellar and femoral cartilages were 90% and 66% higher, respectively, for IDEAL 3D SPGR. CNRs of patellar cartilages and joint fluids were 2.4 times higher for FSE T2 FS, and CNR between the femoral cartilage and joint fluid was 2.2 times higher for FSE T2 FS. General image quality and FS were superior using FSE T2 FS compared to those of IDEAL 3D SPGR imaging according to both readers, while cartilage evaluation was superior using IDEAL 3D SPGR. Additionally, cartilage injuries were more prominent in IDEAL 3D SPGR than in FSE T2FS according to both readers.
Conclusion
IDEAL 3D SPGR images show excellent visualization of patellar and femoral cartilages in 3.0 T and can compensate for the weaknesses of FSE T2 FS in the evaluation of cartilage injuries.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.