Convincing evidence for magic angle less‐sensitive quantitative T1ρ imaging of articular cartilage using the 3D ultrashort echo time cones adiabatic T1ρ (3D UTE cones‐AdiabT1ρ) sequence

Purpose To investigate the magic angle effect in three‐dimensional ultrashort echo time Cones Adiabatic T1ρ (3D UTE Cones‐AdiabT1ρ) imaging of articular cartilage at 3T. Methods The magic angle effect was investigated by repeated 3D UTE Cones‐AdiabT1ρ imaging of eight human patellar samples at five...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Magnetic resonance in medicine 2020-11, Vol.84 (5), p.2551-2560
Main Authors: Wu, Mei, Ma, Ya-jun, Kasibhatla, Akhil, Chen, Mingxin, Jang, Hyungseok, Jerban, Saeed, Chang, Eric Y., Du, Jiang
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adiabatic
Adiabatic flow
AdiabT1ρ
articular cartilage
Cartilage
Cartilage (articular)
Cones
Continuous radiation
CW‐T1ρ
Dependence
Evaluation
Full Papers—Imaging Methodology
Imaging
magic angle
T 2
ultrashort echo time
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose To investigate the magic angle effect in three‐dimensional ultrashort echo time Cones Adiabatic T1ρ (3D UTE Cones‐AdiabT1ρ) imaging of articular cartilage at 3T. Methods The magic angle effect was investigated by repeated 3D UTE Cones‐AdiabT1ρ imaging of eight human patellar samples at five angular orientations ranging from 0° to 90° relative to the B0 field. Cones continuous wave T1ρ (Cones‐CW‐T1ρ) and Cones‐ T2∗ sequences were also applied for comparison. Cones‐AdiabT1ρ, Cones‐CW‐T1ρ and Cones‐ T2∗ values were measured for four regions of interest (ROIs) (10% superficial layer, 60% transitional layer, 30% radial layer, and a global ROI) for each sample at each orientation to evaluate their angular dependence. Results 3D UTE Cones‐AdiabT1ρ values increased from the radial layer to the superficial layer for all angular orientations. The superficial layer showed the least angular dependence (around 4.4%), while the radial layer showed the strongest angular dependence (around 34.4%). Cones‐AdiabT1ρ values showed much reduced magic angle effect compared to Cones‐CW‐T1ρ and Cones‐ T2∗ values for all four ROIs. On average over eight patellae, Cones‐AdiabT1ρ values increased by 27.2% (4.4% for superficial, 23.8% for transitional, and 34.4% for radial layers), Cones‐CW‐T1ρ values increased by 76.9% (11.3% for superficial, 59.1% for transitional, and 117.8% for radial layers), and Cones‐ T2∗ values increased by 237.5% (87.9% for superficial, 262.9% for transitional, and 327.3% for radial layers) near the magic angle. Conclusions The 3D UTE Cones‐AdiabT1ρ sequence is less sensitive to the magic angle effect in the evaluation of articular cartilage compared to Cones‐ T2∗ and Cones‐CW‐T1ρ.
ISSN:0740-3194
1522-2594
DOI:10.1002/mrm.28317