Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility of using an inversion-recovery ultrashort echo time (UTE) sequence for quantification of glenoid bone loss

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To utilize the 3D inversion recovery prepared ultrashort echo time with cones readout (IR-UTE-Cones) MRI technique for direct imaging of lamellar bone with comparison to the gold standard of computed tomography (CT).

Materials and methods

CT and MRI was performed on 11 shoulder specimens and three patients. Five specimens had imaging performed before and after glenoid fracture (osteotomy). 2D and 3D volume-rendered CT images were reconstructed and conventional T1-weighted and 3D IR-UTE-Cones MRI techniques were performed. Glenoid widths and defects were independently measured by two readers using the circle method. Measurements were compared with those made from 3D CT datasets. Paired-sample Student’s t tests and intraclass correlation coefficients were performed. In addition, 2D CT and 3D IR-UTE-Cones MRI datasets were linearly registered, digitally overlaid, and compared in consensus by these two readers.

Results

Compared with the reference standard (3D CT), glenoid bone diameter measurements made on 2D CT and 3D IR-UTE-Cones were not significantly different for either reader, whereas T1-weighted images underestimated the diameter (mean difference of 0.18 cm, p = 0.003 and 0.16 cm, p = 0.022 for readers 1 and 2, respectively). However, mean margin of error for measuring glenoid bone loss was small for all modalities (range, 1.46–3.92%). All measured ICCs were near perfect. Digitally registered 2D CT and 3D IR-UTE-Cones MRI datasets yielded essentially perfect congruity between the two modalities.

Conclusions

The 3D IR-UTE-Cones MRI technique selectively visualizes lamellar bone, produces similar contrast to 2D CT imaging, and compares favorably to measurements made using 2D and 3D CT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bhatia S, Ghodadra NS, Romeo AA, Bach BR, Verma NN, Vo ST, et al. The importance of the recognition and treatment of glenoid bone loss in an athletic population. Sports Health. 2011;3(5):435–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Saliken DJ, Bornes TD, Bouliane MJ, Sheps DM, Beaupre LA. Imaging methods for quantifying glenoid and Hill–Sachs bone loss in traumatic instability of the shoulder: a scoping review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bishop JY, Jones GL, Rerko MA, Donaldson C, Group MS. 3-D CT is the most reliable imaging modality when quantifying glenoid bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(4):1251–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang EY, Du J, Chung CB. UTE imaging in the musculoskeletal system. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(4):870–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chang EY, Du J, Bae WC, Chung CB. Qualitative and quantitative ultrashort echo time imaging of musculoskeletal tissues. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015;19(4):375–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carl M, Bydder GM, Du J. UTE imaging with simultaneous water and fat signal suppression using a time-efficient multispoke inversion recovery pulse sequence. Magn Reson Med. 2016;76(2):577–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gurney PT, Hargreaves BA, Nishimura DG. Design and analysis of a practical 3D cones trajectory. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55(3):575–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen J, Chang EY, Carl M, Ma Y, Shao H, Chen B, et al. Measurement of bound and pore water T1 relaxation times in cortical bone using three-dimensional ultrashort echo time cones sequences. Magn Reson Med. 2017;77(6):2136–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Li S, Ma L, Chang EY, Shao H, Chen J, Chung CB, et al. Effects of inversion time on inversion recovery prepared ultrashort echo time (IR-UTE) imaging of bound and pore water in cortical bone. NMR Biomed. 2015;28(1):70–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Horch RA, Gochberg DF, Nyman JS, Does MD. Clinically compatible MRI strategies for discriminating bound and pore water in cortical bone. Magn Reson Med. 2012;68(6):1774–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Du J, Carl M, Bydder M, Takahashi A, Chung CB, Bydder GM. Qualitative and quantitative ultrashort echo time (UTE) imaging of cortical bone. J Magn Reson. 2010;207(2):304–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Han M, Rieke V, Scott SJ, Ozhinsky E, Salgaonkar VA, Jones PD, et al. Quantifying temperature-dependent T1 changes in cortical bone using ultrashort echo time MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2015;74(6):1548–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Huysmans PE, Haen PS, Kidd M, Dhert WJ, Willems JW. The shape of the inferior part of the glenoid: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2006;15(6):759–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pauly JM, Conolly SI, Nishimura D, Macovski A. Slice-Selective Excitation for Very Short T2 Species. Amsterdam: ISMRM 8th Scientific Meeting & Exhibition; 1989. p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Huijsmans PE, Haen PS, Kidd M, Dhert WJ, van der Hulst VP, Willems WJ. Quantification of a glenoid defect with three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2007;16(6):803–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gyftopoulos S, Hasan S, Bencardino J, Mayo J, Nayyar S, Babb J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI in the measurement of glenoid bone loss. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(4):873–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee RK, Griffith JF, Tong MM, Sharma N, Yung P. Glenoid bone loss: assessment with MR imaging. Radiology. 2013;267(2):496–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stecco A, Guenzi E, Cascone T, Fabbiano F, Fornara P, Oronzo P, et al. MRI can assess glenoid bone loss after shoulder luxation: inter- and intra-individual comparison with CT. Radiol Med. 2013;118(8):1335–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rerko MA, Pan X, Donaldson C, Jones GL, Bishop JY. Comparison of various imaging techniques to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22(4):528–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moroder P, Resch H, Schnaitmann S, Hoffelner T, Tauber M. The importance of CT for the pre-operative surgical planning in recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(2):219–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gyftopoulos S, Yemin A, Mulholland T, Bloom M, Storey P, Geppert C, et al. 3DMR osseous reconstructions of the shoulder using a gradient-echo based two-point Dixon reconstruction: a feasibility study. Skelet Radiol. 2013;42(3):347–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gyftopoulos S, Beltran LS, Yemin A, Strauss E, Meislin R, Jazrawi L, et al. Use of 3D MR reconstructions in the evaluation of glenoid bone loss: a clinical study. Skelet Radiol. 2014;43(2):213–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stillwater L, Koenig J, Maycher B, Davidson M. 3D-MR vs. 3D-CT of the shoulder in patients with glenohumeral instability. Skelet Radiol. 2017;46(3):325–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. De Wilde LF, Berghs BM, Audenaert E, Sys G, Van Maele GO, Barbaix E. About the variability of the shape of the glenoid cavity. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26(1):54–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge support from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service (I01CX001388), NIH (R01AR062581 and R01AR068987), and GE Healthcare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA

    Ya-jun Ma, Amin Nazaran, Xin Cheng & Jiang Du

  2. Radiology Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, 3350 La Jolla Village Drive, MC 114, San Diego, CA, 92161, USA

    Ya-jun Ma, Amin Nazaran & Eric Y. Chang

  3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

    Justin West & Heinz Hoenecke

  4. Department of Histology & Embryology, Medical College, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China

    Xin Cheng

Authors
  1. Ya-jun Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justin West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amin Nazaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xin Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Heinz Hoenecke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jiang Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eric Y. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Y. Chang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to disclose related to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, Yj., West, J., Nazaran, A. et al. Feasibility of using an inversion-recovery ultrashort echo time (UTE) sequence for quantification of glenoid bone loss. Skeletal Radiol 47, 973–980 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-018-2898-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-018-2898-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation