Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 3652–3661 | Cite as

CAIPIRINHA accelerated SPACE enables 10-min isotropic 3D TSE MRI of the ankle for optimized visualization of curved and oblique ligaments and tendons

  • Vivek Kalia
  • Benjamin Fritz
  • Rory Johnson
  • Wesley D. Gilson
  • Esther Raithel
  • Jan FritzEmail author
Musculoskeletal

Abstract

Objectives

To test the hypothesis that a fourfold CAIPIRINHA accelerated, 10-min, high-resolution, isotropic 3D TSE MRI prototype protocol of the ankle derives equal or better quality than a 20-min 2D TSE standard protocol.

Methods

Following internal review board approval and informed consent, 3-Tesla MRI of the ankle was obtained in 24 asymptomatic subjects including 10-min 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE TSE prototype and 20-min 2D TSE standard protocols. Outcome variables included image quality and visibility of anatomical structures using 5-point Likert scales. Non-parametric statistical testing was used. P values ≤0.001 were considered significant.

Results

Edge sharpness, contrast resolution, uniformity, noise, fat suppression and magic angle effects were without statistical difference on 2D and 3D TSE images (p > 0.035). Fluid was mildly brighter on intermediate-weighted 2D images (p < 0.001), whereas 3D images had substantially less partial volume, chemical shift and no pulsatile-flow artifacts (p < 0.001). Oblique and curved planar 3D images resulted in mildly-to-substantially improved visualization of joints, spring, bifurcate, syndesmotic, collateral and sinus tarsi ligaments, and tendons (p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

3D TSE MRI with CAIPIRINHA acceleration enables high-spatial resolution oblique and curved planar MRI of the ankle and visualization of ligaments, tendons and joints equally well or better than a more time-consuming anisotropic 2D TSE MRI.

Key Points

• High-resolution 3D TSE MRI improves visualization of ankle structures.

• Limitations of current 3D TSE MRI include long scan times.

• 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE allows now a fourfold-accelerated data acquisition.

• 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE enables high-spatial-resolution ankle MRI within 10 min.

• 10-min 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE produces equal-or-better quality than 20-min 2D TSE.

Keywords

3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE Ankle TSE 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Zhang Qiong for his work on the pulse sequence prototype.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jan Fritz.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Siemens AG and and Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Funding

This study has received funding by Siemens AG.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported.

Methodology

Prospective, experimental, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer JS, Banerjee S, Henning TD, Krug R, Majumdar S, Link TM (2007) Fast high-spatial-resolution MRI of the ankle with parallel imaging using GRAPPA at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:240–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kijowski R, Davis KW, Woods MA et al (2009) Knee joint: comprehensive assessment with 3D isotropic resolution fast spin-echo MR imaging--diagnostic performance compared with that of conventional MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 252:486–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Notohamiprodjo M, Horng A, Kuschel B et al (2012) 3D-imaging of the knee with an optimized 3D-FSE-sequence and a 15-channel knee-coil. Eur J Radiol 81:3441–3449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Notohamiprodjo M, Horng A, Pietschmann MF et al (2009) MRI of the knee at 3T: first clinical results with an isotropic PDfs-weighted 3D-TSE-sequence. Invest Radiol 44:585–597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ristow O, Steinbach L, Sabo G et al (2009) Isotropic 3D fast spin-echo imaging versus standard 2D imaging at 3.0 T of the knee--image quality and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol 19:1263–1272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breuer FA, Blaimer M, Mueller MF et al (2006) Controlled aliasing in volumetric parallel imaging (2D CAIPIRINHA). Magn Reson Med 55:549–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wright KL, Harrell MW, Jesberger JA et al (2014) Clinical evaluation of CAIPIRINHA: comparison against a GRAPPA standard. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:189–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yutzy SR, Seiberlich N, Duerk JL, Griswold MA (2011) Improvements in multislice parallel imaging using radial CAIPIRINHA. Magn Reson Med 65:1630–1637CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schweitzer ME (2016) Evidence level. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bidgood WD Jr, Horii SC (1992) Introduction to the ACR-NEMA DICOM standard. Radiographics 12:345–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clanton TO, Ho CP, Williams BT et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging characterization of individual ankle syndesmosis structures in asymptomatic and surgically treated cohorts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3399-1 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boonthathip M, Chen L, Trudell D, Resnick D (2011) Lateral ankle ligaments: MR arthrography with anatomic correlation in cadavers. Clin Imaging 35:42–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mengiardi B, Pfirrmann CW, Vienne P, Hodler J, Zanetti M (2007) Medial collateral ligament complex of the ankle: MR appearance in asymptomatic subjects. Radiology 242:817–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lektrakul N, Chung CB, Lai Y et al (2001) Tarsal sinus: arthrographic, MR imaging, MR arthrographic, and pathologic findings in cadavers and retrospective study data in patients with sinus tarsi syndrome. Radiology 219:802–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thacker P, Mardis N (2013) Ligaments of the tarsal sinus: improved detection, characterisation and significance in the paediatric ankle with 3-D proton density MR imaging. Pediatr Radiol 43:196–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mengiardi B, Zanetti M, Schottle PB et al (2005) Spring ligament complex: MR imaging-anatomic correlation and findings in asymptomatic subjects. Radiology 237:242–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Melao L, Canella C, Weber M, Negrao P, Trudell D, Resnick D (2009) Ligaments of the transverse tarsal joint complex: MRI-anatomic correlation in cadavers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:662–671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung JY, Yoon YC, Kwon JW, Ahn JH, Choe BK (2009) Diagnosis of internal derangement of the knee at 3.0-T MR imaging: 3D isotropic intermediate-weighted versus 2D sequences. Radiology 253:780–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Notohamiprodjo M, Kuschel B, Horng A et al (2012) 3D-MRI of the ankle with optimized 3D-SPACE. Invest Radiol 47:231–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenberg ZS, Beltran J, Bencardino JT (2000) From the RSNA Refresher Courses. Radiological Society of North America. MR imaging of the ankle and foot. Radiographics 20 Spec No:S153–179Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stevens KJ, Busse RF, Han E et al (2008) Ankle: isotropic MR imaging with 3D-FSE-cube--initial experience in healthy volunteers. Radiology 249:1026–1033CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fritz J, Fritz B, Thawait GG, Meyer H, Gilson WD, Raithel E (2016) Three-Dimensional CAIPIRINHA SPACE TSE for 5-minute high-resolution MRI of the knee. Invest Radiol 51(10):609–617Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yi J, Cha JG, Lee YK, Lee BR, Jeon CH (2016) MRI of the anterior talofibular ligament, talar cartilage and os subfibulare: comparison of isotropic resolution 3D and conventional 2D T2-weighted fast spin-echo sequences at 3.0 T. Skeletal Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00256-016-2367-x Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Vermont Medical CenterBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Section of Musculoskeletal RadiologyJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity Medical Center FreiburgFreiburg im BreisgauGermany
  4. 4.Siemens Healthcare USA, IncCaryUSA
  5. 5.Siemens Healthcare USA, IncBaltimoreUSA
  6. 6.Siemens Healthcare GmbHErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations