Delayed gadolinium‐enhanced MRI of menisci and cartilage (dGEMRIM/dGEMRIC) in obese patients with knee osteoarthritis: Cross‐sectional study of 85 obese patients with intra‐articular administered gadolinium contrast

摘要

Background Early cartilage changes in knee osteoarthritis (OA) can be assessed by both intravenous (i.v.) and intra‐articular (i.a.) delayed gadolinium‐enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC). Purpose To examine the relationship between i.a. dGEMRIC and delayed gadolinium‐enhanced MRI of menisci (dGEMRIM), and to investigate if the approach can be used to assess the morphological degeneration of menisci in obese patients with knee OA. Study Type Cross‐sectional. Population Eighty‐five obese patients with knee OA. Field Strength/Sequences 1.5T. Inversion recovery sequence with four inversion times. Assessment T 1 relaxation times were calculated for posterior weight‐bearing femoral cartilage and the posterior horns of the menisci. Meniscus degeneration sum score (0–2) was assessed as increased signal/no signal (1/0) and tear/no tear (1/0). Statistical Tests T 1 relaxation times were compared using Student's t ‐test. Comparison of cartilage and meniscus T 1 relaxation times was done by regression analysis. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparison of meniscal T 1 relaxation times among the three summed morphological scores (0–2). Statistical analyses were performed with a level of significance at 0.05. Results For lateral menisci, morphology sum scores of 0, 1, and 2 were found in 13, 58, and 14 patients and for medial menisci in 2, 30, and 30 patients, respectively. Mean T 1 relaxation times were 441 msec, 480 msec, and 497 msec for cartilage, lateral menisci, and medial menisci, respectively. T 1 relaxation times for the menisci were similar ( P ?=?0.53), and a weak correlation was found between dGEMRIC and dGEMRIM in the lateral compartments (R?=?0.26). Comparing dGEMRIM between different morphology sum scores showed no differences ( P ??0.4). Data Conclusion I.a. dGEMRIM showed no correlation between the degree of meniscal degeneration and meniscus T 1 relaxation times. I.a. dGEMRIM do not seem to deliver useful information about meniscus degeneration to be suitable for clinical applications, but i.a. dGEMRIC may still be considered an alternative contrast‐saving method for cartilage. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1700–1706