Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 287–292 | Cite as

T2 star relaxation times for assessment of articular cartilage at 3 T: a feasibility study

  • Tallal Charles Mamisch
  • Timothy Hughes
  • Timothy J. Mosher
  • Christoph Mueller
  • Siegfried Trattnig
  • Chris Boesch
  • Goetz Hannes WelschEmail author
Scientific Article



T2 mapping techniques use the relaxation constant as an indirect marker of cartilage structure, and the relaxation constant has also been shown to be a sensitive parameter for cartilage evaluation. As a possible additional robust biomarker, T2* relaxation time is a potential, clinically feasible parameter for the biochemical evaluation of articular cartilage.

Materials and methods

The knees of 15 healthy volunteers and 15 patients after microfracture therapy (MFX) were evaluated with a multi-echo spin-echo T2 mapping technique and a multi-echo gradient-echo T2* mapping sequence at 3.0 Tesla MRI. Inline maps, using a log-linear least squares fitting method, were assessed with respect to the zonal dependency of T2 and T2* relaxation for the deep and superficial regions of healthy articular cartilage and cartilage repair tissue.


There was a statistically significant correlation between T2 and T2* values. Both parameters demonstrated similar spatial dependency, with longer values measured toward the articular surface for healthy articular cartilage. No spatial variation was observed for cartilage repair tissue after MFX.


Within this feasibility study, both T2 and T2* relaxation parameters demonstrated a similar response in the assessment of articular cartilage and cartilage repair tissue. The potential advantages of T2*-mapping of cartilage include faster imaging times and the opportunity for 3D acquisitions, thereby providing greater spatial resolution and complete coverage of the articular surface.


MRI T2 T2* Knee Articular cartilage Cartilage repair 



Funding for this study was provided by the project “Vienna Advanced Clinical Imaging Center” (VIACLIC), within the “Vienna Spots Of Excellence” program; a collaboration of the Medical University of Vienna and Siemens Austria.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. Timothy Hughes is an employee of Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany.


  1. 1.
    Brittberg M, Winalski CS. Evaluation of cartilage injuries and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;2(85-A Suppl):58–69.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Recht M, White LM, Winalski CS, Miniaci A, Minas T, Parker RD. MR imaging of cartilage repair procedures. Skeletal Radiol. 2003;32:185–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trattnig S, Millington SA, Szomolanyi P, Marlovits S. MR imaging of osteochondral grafts and autologous chondrocyte implantation. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:103–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Link TM, Steinbach LS, Ghosh S, et al. Osteoarthritis: MR imaging findings in different stages of disease and correlation with clinical findings. Radiology. 2003;226:373–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Potter HG, Linklater JM, Allen AA, Hannafin JA, Haas SB. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage in the knee. An evaluation with use of fast-spin-echo imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:1276–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burstein D, Gray ML. Is MRI fulfilling its promise for molecular imaging of cartilage in arthritis? Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006;14:1087–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burstein D, Velyvis J, Scott KT, et al. Protocol issues for delayed Gd(DTPA)(2-)-enhanced MRI: (dGEMRIC) for clinical evaluation of articular cartilage. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45:36–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mosher TJ, Dardzinski BJ. Cartilage MRI T2 relaxation time mapping: overview and applications. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2004;8:355–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nieminen MT, Rieppo J, Toyras J, et al. T2 relaxation reveals spatial collagen architecture in articular cartilage: a comparative quantitative MRI and polarized light microscopic study. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46:487–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    White LM, Sussman MS, Hurtig M, Probyn L, Tomlinson G, Kandel R. Cartilage T2 assessment: differentiation of normal hyaline cartilage and reparative tissue after arthroscopic cartilage repair in equine subjects. Radiology. 2006;241:407–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maier CF, Tan SG, Hariharan H, Potter HG. T2 quantitation of articular cartilage at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;17:358–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bredella MA, Tirman PF, Peterfy CG, et al. Accuracy of T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR imaging with fat saturation in detecting cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with arthroscopy in 130 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:1073–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murphy BJ. Evaluation of grades 3 and 4 chondromalacia of the knee using T2*-weighted 3D gradient-echo articular cartilage imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 2001;30:305–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haacke E, Brown R, Thompson M, Venkatesan R. MRI Physical Principles and Sequence Design. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghugre NR, Enriquez CM, Coates TD, Nelson Jr MD, Wood JC. Improved R2* measurements in myocardial iron overload. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;23:9–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gudas R, Stankevicius E, Monastyreckiene E, Pranys D, Kalesinskas RJ. Osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee joint in athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:834–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knutsen G, Drogset JO, Engebretsen L, et al. A randomized trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture. Findings at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2105–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knutsen G, Engebretsen L, Ludvigsen TC, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture in the knee. A randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:455–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith HE, Mosher TJ, Dardzinski BJ, et al. Spatial variation in cartilage T2 of the knee. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;14:50–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bydder M, Rahal A, Fullerton GD, Bydder GM. The magic angle effect: a source of artifact, determinant of image contrast, and technique for imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:290–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tallal Charles Mamisch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Timothy Hughes
    • 3
  • Timothy J. Mosher
    • 4
  • Christoph Mueller
    • 5
  • Siegfried Trattnig
    • 6
  • Chris Boesch
    • 2
  • Goetz Hannes Welsch
    • 5
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, InselspitalUniversity BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Methodology, Department of Clinical ResearchUniversity BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Siemens Medical SolutionsErlangenGermany
  4. 4.Musculoskeletal Imaging and MRI, Department of RadiologyPenn State University College of MedicineHersheyUSA
  5. 5.Department of Trauma SurgeryUniversity of ErlangenErlangenGermany
  6. 6.MR Center – High Field MR, Department of RadiologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations