Effect of gradient and section orientation on quantitative analysis of knee joint cartilage

Eckstein, F.; Stammberger, Tobias; Priebsch, Jürgen; Englmeier, Karl‐Hans; Reiser, Maximilian

doi:10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(200002)11:2<161::aid-jmri13>3.0.co;2-j

Cited by 33 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent evidence suggests that multi-detector CT (MDCT) arthrography may be more sensitive than MRI for detecting cartilaginous lesions (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) and quantifying cartilage thickness (6), although fat-suppressed spoiled gradient-echo in the steady state (FS-SPGR) is still considered the best imaging protocol for imaging articular cartilage (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16). While a substantial body of research has examined MRI cartilage reconstruction errors (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Cartilage Thickness: Factors Influencing Multidetector CT Measurements in a Phantom Study

Anderson¹,

Ellis²,

Peters³

et al. 2008

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE-To prospectively assess in a phantom the reconstruction errors and detection limits of cartilage thickness measurements from MDCT arthrography as a function of contrast agent concentration, imaging plane, spatial resolution, joint space and tube current, using known measurements as the reference standard.MATERIALS AND METHODS-A phantom with nine chambers was manufactured. Each chamber had a nylon cylinder encased by sleeves of aluminum and polycarbonate to simulate trabecular bone, cortical bone, and cartilage. Variations in simulated cartilage thickness and joint space were assessed. The phantom was scanned with and without contrast agent on three separate days, with chamber axes both perpendicular and parallel to the scanner axis. Images were reconstructed at intervals of both 1.0 and 0.5 mm. Contrast agent concentration and tube current were varied. Simulated cartilage thickness was determined from image segmentation. Root mean squared and mean residual errors were used to characterize the measurements. CT scanner and image segmentation reproducibility were determined. RESULTS-Simulated cartilage was reconstructed with < 10% error for thicknesses >1.0 mm when no contrast agent or a low concentration of contrast agent (25%) was used. Errors grew as concentration of contrast agent increased. Decreasing the simulated joint space to 0.5 mm caused slight increases in error; below 0.5 mm errors grew substantially. Measurements from anisotropic image data had errors greater than those for isotropic data. Altering tube current did not affect reconstruction errors. CONCLUSION-Our study establishes lower bounds and repeatability of simulated cartilage thickness measurement using MDCT arthrography, and provides data pertinent to choosing contrast agent concentration, joint spacing, scanning plane, and spatial resolution to reduce reconstruction errors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Cartilage Thickness: Factors Influencing Multidetector CT Measurements in a Phantom Study

Anderson¹,

Ellis²,

Peters³

et al. 2008

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the means of computing the vector perpendicular to a surface or point cloud vary in different studies. While Lösch et al [14] simply defined the surface normal along the 2D gray value gradient, a more robust approach was used in recent studies by Stammberger et al [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], namely the Euclidean Distance Transform (EDT). Other approaches utilize a curve or plane fitting to the data [20], [21] or an offset-based normal vector computation [22], [23].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness

Maier

Black

Bonaretti

et al. 2017

Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease affecting bones and cartilage especially in the human knee. In this context, cartilage thickness is an indicator for knee cartilage health. Thickness measurements are performed on medical images acquired in-vivo. Currently, there is no standard method agreed upon that defines a distance measure in articular cartilage. In this work, we present a comparison of different methods commonly used in literature. These methods are based on nearest neighbors, surface normal vectors, local thickness and potential field lines. All approaches were applied to manual segmentations of tibia and lateral and medial tibial cartilage performed by experienced raters. The underlying data were contrast agent-enhanced cone-beam C-arm CT reconstructions of one healthy subject's knee. The subject was scanned three times, once in supine position and two times in a standing weight-bearing position. A comparison of the resulting thickness maps shows similar distributions and high correlation coefficients between the approaches above 0.90. The nearest neighbor method results on average in the lowest cartilage thickness values, while the local thickness approach assigns the highest values. We showed that the different methods agree in their thickness distribution. The results will be used for a future evaluation of cartilage change under weight-bearing conditions.

show abstract

“…In contrast to radiographic joint space width (JSW), for which sufficient accuracy was confirmed only in the medial FT compartment (119), the degree of accuracy of MRI-based measurements is similar for all knee surfaces (Table 1). Applying changes in gradient direction, it has been shown that no relevant geometric distortion is involved in quantitative measures of cartilage morphology (120,121). Cohen et al (94) observed the accuracy error for the AC in healthy knees to be slightly larger [root mean square (RMS) residual error ¼ 0.22 mm] than for tAB (0.14 mm), with cartilage thickness displaying an error of $0.3 mm.…”

Section: Technical Accuracy and Precision Of Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative MRI of cartilage and bone: degenerative changes in osteoarthritis

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and quantitative image analysis technology has recently started to generate a great wealth of quantitative information on articular cartilage and bone physiology, pathophysiology and degenerative changes in osteoarthritis. This paper reviews semiquantitative scoring of changes of articular tissues (e.g. WORMS ¼ whole-organ MRI scoring or KOSS ¼ knee osteoarthritis scoring system), quantification of cartilage morphology (e.g. volume and thickness), quantitative measurements of cartilage composition (e.g. T 2 , T 1rho , T 1Gd ¼ dGEMRIC index) and quantitative measurement of bone structure (e.g. app. BV/TV, app. TbTh, app. Tb.N, app. Tb.Sp) in osteoarthritis. For each of these fields we describe the hardware and MRI sequences available, the image analysis systems and techniques used to derive semiquantitative and quantitative parameters, the technical accuracy and precision of the measurements reported to date and current results from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in osteoarthritis. Moreover, the paper summarizes studies that have compared MRI-based measurements with radiography and discusses future perspectives of quantitative MRI in osteoarthritis. In summary, the above methodologies show great promise for elucidating the pathophysiology of various tissues and identifying risk factors of osteoarthritis, for developing structure modifying drugs (DMOADs) and for combating osteoarthritis with new and better therapy. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.KEYWORDS: osteoarthritis; joint; cartilage; bone; magnetic resonance imaging; knee; image analysis; disease-modifying drugs RATIONALE FOR QUANTITATIVE MRI OF CARTILAGE AND BONE IN OSTEOARTHRITISThe health and integrity of diarthrodial (synovial) joints are prerequisites for pain-free movement and have a major impact on the quality of life. However, the population of individuals above the age of 65 years is rapidly growing and 70% of the women and 60% of the men aged 65 years or older suffer from degenerative joint disease [¼ osteoarthritis (OA)] (1-7). OA has been defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) as a 'heterogeneous group of conditions that leads to joint symptoms and signs which are associated with defective integrity of articular cartilage, in addition to related changes in the underlying bone at the joint margins'. It remains an open question whether the initial changes take place in cartilage or bone or other articular tissues and, more importantly, what the causal relationship between these changes is (5-19). Also, within each NMR IN BIOMEDICINE NMR Biomed. 2006; 19: 822-854 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/nbm.1063 narrowing; JSW, joint space width; K, knee; KLG, Kellgren Lawrence grade; KOSS, knee osteoarthritis scoring system; LF, lateral femoral condyle; LT, lateral tibia; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MF, medial femoral condyle; MT, medial tibia; OA, osteoarthritis; OAI, Osteoarthritis Initiative; P, patella; PGs, proteoglycans;...

show abstract

Effect of gradient and section orientation on quantitative analysis of knee joint cartilage

Cited by 33 publications

References 28 publications

Cartilage Thickness: Factors Influencing Multidetector CT Measurements in a Phantom Study

Cartilage Thickness: Factors Influencing Multidetector CT Measurements in a Phantom Study

Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness

Quantitative MRI of cartilage and bone: degenerative changes in osteoarthritis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About