Objective:To retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of traditional MRI and T2 Mapping quantitative imaging technology for knee joint cartilage injury,clarify the differences in diagnostic value of the two im...Objective:To retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of traditional MRI and T2 Mapping quantitative imaging technology for knee joint cartilage injury,clarify the differences in diagnostic value of the two imaging methods in different injury grades and different cartilage subregions,and provide evidence-based basis for the accurate diagnosis of clinical cartilage injury.Methods:Clinical and imaging data of 286 patients with knee joint lesions admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Xiangtan Medicine and Health Vocational College from January 2020 to June 2023 were collected retrospectively.All patients underwent both traditional MRI sequences and T2 Mapping sequences.The knee joint cartilage was divided into 14 subregions.Two senior radiologists independently diagnosed the images of the two imaging technologies using a blind method and recorded the cartilage injury grades.The sensitivity,specificity,accuracy,positive predictive value,negative predictive value,and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve(AUC)of the two technologies for diagnosing cartilage injury were calculated and compared,and the differences in their diagnostic efficacy in different injury grades and different subregions were analyzed.Results:A total of 4004 cartilage subregions from 286 patients were included in the analysis,including 1836 injured subregions and 2168 normal subregions.The overall sensitivity(89.7%),accuracy(91.2%),and AUC(0.946)of T2 Mapping quantitative imaging for diagnosing cartilage injury were significantly higher than those of traditional MRI(76.3%,82.5%,and 0.852 respectively),with statistically significant differences(p<0.001);there was no significant difference in specificity between the two(93.5%vs 90.8%,p=0.062).Subgroup analysis showed that T2 Mapping had the most significant diagnostic advantage in early cartilage injury(Grade 1),with sensitivity(78.5%)33.2%higher than that of traditional MRI(45.3%)(p<0.001).Conclusion:The diagnostic efficacy of T2 Mapping quantitative imaging for knee joint cartilage injury is significantly superior to that of traditional MRI,especially in the detection of early cartilage injury and accurate evaluation of weight-bearing area injury.Data verify its clinical applicability and reliability.It can be used as an important supplementary method to traditional MRI,and is recommended for the early diagnosis,grading evaluation,and clinical follow-up of cartilage injury.展开更多
目的基于T2^(*)mapping定量分析业余马拉松运动员足踝部关节软骨的T2^(*)值,并分析其与性别、年龄、身体质量指数(body mass index,BMI)、跑龄、跑量之间的相关性。材料与方法于2023年7月份至2023年9月份招募重庆市长跑运动爱好者48名,...目的基于T2^(*)mapping定量分析业余马拉松运动员足踝部关节软骨的T2^(*)值,并分析其与性别、年龄、身体质量指数(body mass index,BMI)、跑龄、跑量之间的相关性。材料与方法于2023年7月份至2023年9月份招募重庆市长跑运动爱好者48名,其中跑量<300 km/月的36例(中低跑量组),跑量≥300 km/月的12例(高跑量组)。所有受试者均进行单侧无症状踝关节的MRI扫描,扫描序列包括T2^(*)mapping多回波自旋回波(spin echo,SE)序列矢状位、质子密度加权成像脂肪抑制(proton density-weighted imaging fat-saturated,PDWI-FS)序列矢状位、冠状位、横轴位以及T1加权脂肪抑制成像(T1-weighted imaging fat-saturated,T1WI-FS)序列横轴位。沿关节软骨轮廓边缘勾画距骨穹窿、跟骰关节跟骨面、骰骨面及后距下关节跟骨面、距骨面软骨作为感兴趣区(region of interest,ROI),获得相应的T2^(*)值。采用线性回归分析软骨T2^(*)值与年龄、BMI、跑龄的相关性,采用独立样本t检验分析不同跑量及不同性别间的软骨T2^(*)值差异。结果(1)距骨穹窿、跟骰关节跟骨面及骰骨面、后距下关节跟骨面及距骨面软骨T2^(*)值在性别上的差异均具有统计学意义(P=0.001、P<0.001、P=0.002、P=0.008、P=0.004);(2)高跑量组的距骨穹窿、后距下关节跟骨面软骨T2^(*)值高于中低跑量组(P=0.014、0.023),不同跑量的跟骰关节跟骨面及骰骨面、后距下关节距骨面软骨T2^(*)值的差异均无统计学意义(P=0.987、0.072、0.724);(3)距骨穹窿、跟骰关节跟骨面及骰骨面、后距下关节跟骨面、距骨面软骨T2^(*)值均与BMI呈正相关(r=0.376、0.384、0.300、0.422、0.455,P=0.005、0.004、0.019、0.001、0.001)。结论在业余马拉松运动员这一跑步群体中,与中低跑量相比,高跑量更有可能导致距骨穹窿、后距下关节跟骨面软骨损伤;而与较低的BMI相比,高BMI增加了距骨穹窿、跟骰关节跟骨面、骰骨面及后距下关节跟骨面、距骨面软骨损伤的风险。展开更多
基金Application Research of MRI Physiological Quantitative Imaging Technology in the Diagnosis of Cartilage Injury(Project No.:RCYJ2021-04)。
文摘Objective:To retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of traditional MRI and T2 Mapping quantitative imaging technology for knee joint cartilage injury,clarify the differences in diagnostic value of the two imaging methods in different injury grades and different cartilage subregions,and provide evidence-based basis for the accurate diagnosis of clinical cartilage injury.Methods:Clinical and imaging data of 286 patients with knee joint lesions admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Xiangtan Medicine and Health Vocational College from January 2020 to June 2023 were collected retrospectively.All patients underwent both traditional MRI sequences and T2 Mapping sequences.The knee joint cartilage was divided into 14 subregions.Two senior radiologists independently diagnosed the images of the two imaging technologies using a blind method and recorded the cartilage injury grades.The sensitivity,specificity,accuracy,positive predictive value,negative predictive value,and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve(AUC)of the two technologies for diagnosing cartilage injury were calculated and compared,and the differences in their diagnostic efficacy in different injury grades and different subregions were analyzed.Results:A total of 4004 cartilage subregions from 286 patients were included in the analysis,including 1836 injured subregions and 2168 normal subregions.The overall sensitivity(89.7%),accuracy(91.2%),and AUC(0.946)of T2 Mapping quantitative imaging for diagnosing cartilage injury were significantly higher than those of traditional MRI(76.3%,82.5%,and 0.852 respectively),with statistically significant differences(p<0.001);there was no significant difference in specificity between the two(93.5%vs 90.8%,p=0.062).Subgroup analysis showed that T2 Mapping had the most significant diagnostic advantage in early cartilage injury(Grade 1),with sensitivity(78.5%)33.2%higher than that of traditional MRI(45.3%)(p<0.001).Conclusion:The diagnostic efficacy of T2 Mapping quantitative imaging for knee joint cartilage injury is significantly superior to that of traditional MRI,especially in the detection of early cartilage injury and accurate evaluation of weight-bearing area injury.Data verify its clinical applicability and reliability.It can be used as an important supplementary method to traditional MRI,and is recommended for the early diagnosis,grading evaluation,and clinical follow-up of cartilage injury.
