Dataset Information

Is T2 mapping reliable in evaluation of native and repair cartilage tissue of the knee?

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of imaging plane and experience of observers on the reliability of T2 mapping of native and repair cartilage tissue of the knee.

Methods

Fifteen consecutive patients from two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this cross-sectional study. Patients with an isolated knee cartilage lesion were randomised to receive either debridement or microfracture (RCT 1) or debridement or autologous chondrocyte implantation (RCT 2). T2 mapping was performed in coronal and sagittal planes two years postoperatively. A musculoskeletal radiologist, a resident of radiology and two orthopaedic surgeons measured the T2 values independently. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) with 95% Confidence Intervals was used to calculate the inter- and intraobserver agreement.

Results

Mean age for the patients was 36.8 ± 11 years, 8 (53%) were men. The overall interobserver agreement varied from poor to good with ICCs in the range of 0.27- 0.76 for native cartilage and 0.00 - 0.90 for repair tissue. The lowest agreement was achieved for evaluations of repair cartilage tissue. The estimated ICCs suggested higher inter- and intraobserver agreement for radiologists. On medial femoral condyles, T2 values were higher for native cartilage on coronal images (p < 0.001) and for repair tissue on sagittal images (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The reliability of T2 mapping of articular cartilage is influenced by the imaging plane and the experience of the observers. This influence may be more profound for repair cartilage tissue. This is important to consider when using T2 mapping to measure outcomes after cartilage repair surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02637505 and NCT02636881 , registered December 2015.

Level of evidence

II, based on prospective data from two RCTs.

SUBMITTER: Banitalebi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8081777 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSince the first introduction of the MOCART (Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue) score, significant progress has been made with regard to surgical treatment options for cartilage defects, as well as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of such defects. Thus, the aim of this study was to introduce the MOCART 2.0 knee score - an incremental update on the original MOCART score - that incorporates this progression.Materials and methodsThe volume of cartilage defect filling is now assessed in 25% increments, with hypertrophic filling of up to 150% receiving the same scoring as complete repair. Integration now assesses only the integration to neighboring native cartilage, and the severity of surface irregularities is assessed in reference to cartilage repair length rather than depth. The signal intensity of the repair tissue differentiates normal signal, minor abnormal, or severely abnormal signal alterations. The assessment of the variables "subchondral lamina," "adhesions," and "synovitis" was removed and the points were reallocated to the new variable "bony defect or bony overgrowth." The variable "subchondral bone" was renamed to "subchondral changes" and assesses minor and severe edema-like marrow signal, as well as subchondral cysts or osteonecrosis-like signal. Overall, a MOCART 2.0 knee score ranging from 0 to 100 points may be reached. Four independent readers (two expert readers and two radiology residents with limited experience) assessed the 3 T MRI examinations of 24 patients, who had undergone cartilage repair of a femoral cartilage defect using the new MOCART 2.0 knee score. One of the expert readers and both inexperienced readers performed two readings, separated by a four-week interval. For the inexperienced readers, the first reading was based on the evaluation sheet only. For the second reading, a newly introduced atlas was used as an additional reference. Intrarater and interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and weighted kappa statistics. ICCs were interpreted according to Koo and Li; weighted kappa statistics were interpreted according to the criteria of Landis and Koch.ResultsThe overall intrarater (ICC = 0.88, P < 0.001) as well as the interrater (ICC = 0.84, P < 0.001) reliability of the expert readers was almost perfect. Based on the evaluation sheet of the MOCART 2.0 knee score, the overall interrater reliability of the inexperienced readers was poor (ICC = 0.34, P < 0.019) and improved to moderate (ICC = 0.59, P = 0.001) with the use of the atlas.ConclusionsThe MOCART 2.0 knee score was updated to account for changes in the past decade and demonstrates almost perfect interrater and intrarater reliability in expert readers. In inexperienced readers, use of the atlas may improve interrater reliability and, thus, increase the comparability of results across studies.

Project description:ObjectiveEvaluate articular cartilage by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2∗ mapping within the distal femur and proximal tibia in adolescents with juvenile osteochondritis dissecans (JOCD).DesignJOCD imaging studies acquired between August 2011 and February 2019 with clinical and T2∗ mapping MRI knee images were retrospectively collected and analyzed for 31 participants (9F/22M, 15.0 ± 3.8 years old) with JOCD lesions in the medial femoral condyle (MFC). In total, N = 32 knees with JOCD lesions and N = 14 control knees were assessed. Mean T2∗ values in four articular cartilage regions-of-interest (MFC, lateral femoral condyle (LFC), medial tibia (MT), and lateral tibia (LT)) and lesion volume were measured and analyzed using Wilcoxon-rank-sum tests and Spearman correlation coefficients (R).ResultsMean ± standard error T2∗ differences observed between the lesion-sided MFC and the LFC in JOCD-affected knees (28.5 ± 0.9 95% confidence interval [26.8, 30.3] vs 26.3 ± 0.7 [24.8, 27.7] ms, P = 0.088) and between the affected- and control-knee MFC (28.5 ± 0.9 [26.8, 30.3] vs 28.5 ± 0.6 [27.1, 29.9] ms, P = 0.719) were nonsignificant. T2∗ was significantly increased in the lesion-sided MT vs the LT for the JOCD-affected knees (21.5 ± 0.7 [20.1, 22.9] vs 18.0 ± 0.7 [16.5, 19.5] ms, P = 0.002), but this same difference was also observed between the MT and LT in control knees (21.0 ± 0.6 [19.7, 22.3] vs 18.1 ± 1.1 [15.8, 20.4] ms, P = 0.037). There was no significant T2∗ difference between the affected- and control-knee MT (21.5 ± 0.7 [20.1, 22.9] vs 21.0 ± 0.6 [19.7, 22.3] ms, P = 0.905). T2∗ within the lesion-sided MFC was not correlated with patient age (R = 0.20, P = 0.28) or lesion volume (R = 0.06, P = 0.75). T2∗ values were slightly increased near lesions in later-stage JOCD subjects but without statistical significance.ConclusionsT2∗ relaxations times were not significantly different from control sites in the articular cartilage overlying JOCD lesions in the MFC or adjacent MT cartilage in early-stage JOCD.

Project description:PurposeTo compare multicomponent T2 parameters of the articular cartilage of the knee joint measured by using multicomponent driven equilibrium single-shot observation of T1 and T2 (mcDESPOT) in asymptomatic volunteers and patients with osteoarthritis.Materials and methodsThis prospective study was performed with institutional review board approval and with written informed consent from all subjects. The mcDESPOT sequence was performed in the knee joint of 13 asymptomatic volunteers and 14 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Single-component T2 (T2(Single)), T2 of the fast-relaxing water component (T2F) and of the slow-relaxing water component (T2S), and the fraction of the fast-relaxing water component (F(F)) of cartilage were measured. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and multivariate linear regression models were used to compare mcDESPOT parameters between volunteers and patients with osteoarthritis. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to assess diagnostic performance with mcDESPOT parameters for distinguishing morphologically normal cartilage from morphologically degenerative cartilage identified at magnetic resonance imaging in eight cartilage subsections of the knee joint.ResultsHigher cartilage T2(Single) (P < .001), lower cartilage F(F) (P < .001), and similar cartilage T2F (P = .079) and T2S (P = .124) values were seen in patients with osteoarthritis compared with those in asymptomatic volunteers. Differences in T2(Single) and F(F) remained significant (P < .05) after consideration of age differences between groups of subjects. Diagnostic performance was higher with F(F) than with T2(Single) for distinguishing between normal and degenerative cartilage (P < .05), with greater areas under the curve at receiver operating characteristic analysis.ConclusionPatients with osteoarthritis of the knee had significantly higher cartilage T2(Single) and significantly lower cartilage F(F) than did asymptomatic volunteers, and receiver operating characteristic analysis results suggested that F(F) may allow greater diagnostic performance than that with T2(Single) for distinguishing between normal and degenerative cartilage.