Determination of optimum pixel size and slice thickness for tractography and ulnar nerve diffusion tensor imaging at the cubital tunnel using 3T MRI

Abstract

Background

Small peripheral nerve tractography is challenging because of the trade-off among resolution, image acquisition time, and signal-to-noise ratio.

Purpose

To optimize pixel size and slice thickness parameters for fiber tractography and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel using 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Material and Methods

Fifteen healthy volunteers (mean age 30 ± 6.8 years) were recruited prospectively. Axial T2-weighted and DTI scans were acquired, covering the cubital tunnel, using different pixel sizes and slice thicknesses. Three-dimensional (3D) nerve tractography was evaluated for the median number and length of the reconstructed fiber tracts and visual score from 0 to 5. Two-dimensional (2D) cross-sectional DTI was evaluated for fractional anisotropy (FA) values throughout the length of the ulnar nerve.

Results

A pixel size of 1.3 mm² revealed the highest number of reconstructed nerve fibers compared to that of 1.1 mm² (P = 0.048), with a good visual score. A slice thickness of 4 mm had the highest number of reconstructed nerve fibers and visual score compared with other thicknesses (all P < 0.05). In 2D cross-sectional images, the median FA values were in the range of 0.40–0.63 at the proximal, central, and distal portions of the cubital tunnel. Inter-observer agreement for all parameters was good to excellent.

Conclusion

For fiber tractography and DTI of the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel, optimal image quality was obtained using a 1.3-mm² pixel size and 4-mm slice thickness under MR parameters of this study at 3T.

Keywords

3T magnetic resonance imaging diffusion tensor imaging fractional anisotropy slice thickness tractography ulnar nerve pixel size

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beekman

Van Der Plas

Uitdehaag

, et al. Clinical, electrodiagnostic, and sonographic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 2004; 30:202–208.

Palmer

Hughes

TB.

Cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 2010; 35:153–163.

Baumer

Dombert

Staub

, et al. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: MR neurography–nerve T2 signal increase and caliber. Radiology 2011; 260:199–206.

Husarik

Saupe

Pfirrmann

, et al. Elbow nerves: MR findings in 60 asymptomatic subjects—normal anatomy, variants, and pitfalls. Radiology 2009; 252:148–156.

Jeon

Fung

Koch

, et al. Peripheral nerve diffusion tensor imaging: overview, pitfalls, and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 47:1171–1189.

Bäumer

Pham

Ruetters

, et al. Peripheral neuropathy: detection with diffusion-tensor imaging. Radiology 2014; 273:185–193.

Guggenberger

Eppenberger

Markovic

, et al. MR neurography of the median nerve at 3.0T: optimization of diffusion tensor imaging and fiber tractography. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81:e775–782.

Simon

Lagopoulos

Gallagher

, et al. Peripheral nerve diffusion tensor imaging is reliable and reproducible. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 43:962–969.

Tsuchiya

Imai

Tateishi

, et al. Neurography of the spinal nerve roots by diffusion tensor scanning applying motion-probing gradients in six directions. Magn Reson Med Sci 2007; 6:1–5.

10.

Khalil

Hancart

Le Thuc

, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging and tractography of the median nerve in carpal tunnel syndrome: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 2008; 18:2283.

11.

Ohana

Moser

Meyer

, et al. 3T tractography of the median nerve: optimisation of acquisition parameters and normative diffusion values. Diagn Interv imaging 2012; 93:775–784.

12.

Guggenberger

Eppenberger

Markovic

, et al. MR neurography of the median nerve at 3.0 T: optimization of diffusion tensor imaging and fiber tractography. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81:e775–e782.

13.

Stein

Neufeld

Pasternak

, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging of the median nerve in healthy and carpal tunnel syndrome subjects. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 29:657–662.

14.

Andreisek

White

Kassner

, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging and fiber tractography of the median nerve at 1.5 T: optimization of b value. Skeletal Radiol 2009; 38:51–59.

15.

Breitenseher

Kranz

Hold

, et al. MR neurography of ulnar nerve. Eur Radiol 2015; 25:1911–1918.

16.

Baumer

Pham

Ruetters

, et al. Peripheral neuropathy: detection with diffusion-tensor imaging. Radiology 2014; 273:185–193.

17.

Jeon

Fung

Koch

, et al. Peripheral nerve diffusion tensor imaging: Overview, pitfalls, and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 47:1171–1189.

18.

Kim

Choi

Kim

, et al. Effects of MR parameter changes on the quantification of diffusion anisotropy and apparent diffusion coefficient in diffusion tensor imaging: evaluation using a diffusional anisotropic phantom. Korean J Radiol 2015; 16:297–303.

19.

Farrell

Landman

Jones

, et al. Effects of signal‐to‐noise ratio on the accuracy and reproducibility of diffusion tensor imaging–derived fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, and principal eigenvector measurements at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26:756–767.

20.

Hooijmans

Damon

Froeling

, et al. Evaluation of skeletal muscle DTI in patients with duchenne muscular dystrophy. NMR Biomed 2015; 28:1589–1597.

21.

Runge

VM.

Clinical 3 T Magnetic Resonance. Stuttgart: Thieme Medical Publishers, 2007.

22.

Lee JW, Kim JH, Kang HS, et al. Optimization of acquisition parameters of diffusion-tensor magnetic resonance imaging in the spinal cord. Invest Radiol 2006;41:553–559.

23.

Kronlage

Schwehr

Schwarz

, et al. Peripheral nerve diffusion tensor imaging (DTI): normal values and demographic determinants in a cohort of 60 healthy individuals. Eur Radiol 2018; 28:1801–1808.