Cargando…

Differences between 3D isovoxel fat suppression VIBE MRI and CT models of proximal femur osseous anatomy: A preliminary study for bone tumor resection planning

PURPOSE: To evaluate the osseous anatomy of the proximal femur extracted from a 3D-MRI volumetric interpolated breath-hold (VIBE) sequence using either a Dixon or water excitation (WE) fat suppression method, and to measure the overall difference using CT as a reference standard. MATERIAL AND METHOD...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chee, Choong Guen, Chung, Hye Won, Kim, Wanlim, Yoon, Min A., Shin, So Myoung, Kim, Guk Bae
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8087022/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33930040
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250334
_version_ 1783686602234527744
author Chee, Choong Guen
Chung, Hye Won
Kim, Wanlim
Yoon, Min A.
Shin, So Myoung
Kim, Guk Bae
author_facet Chee, Choong Guen
Chung, Hye Won
Kim, Wanlim
Yoon, Min A.
Shin, So Myoung
Kim, Guk Bae
author_sort Chee, Choong Guen
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the osseous anatomy of the proximal femur extracted from a 3D-MRI volumetric interpolated breath-hold (VIBE) sequence using either a Dixon or water excitation (WE) fat suppression method, and to measure the overall difference using CT as a reference standard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed imaging of adult patients with hip pain who underwent 3D hip MRI and CT. A semi-automatically segmented CT model served as the reference standard, and MRI segmentation was performed manually for each unilateral hip joint. The differences between Dixon-VIBE-3D-MRI vs. CT, and WE-VIBE-3D-MRI vs. CT, were measured. Equivalence tests between Dixon-VIBE and WE-VIBE models were performed with a threshold of 0.1 mm. Bland–Altman plots and Lin’s concordance-correlation coefficient were used to analyze the agreement between WE and Dixon sequences. Subgroup analyses were performed for the femoral head/neck, intertrochanteric, and femoral shaft areas. RESULTS: The mean and maximum differences between Dixon-VIBE-3D-MRI vs. CT were 0.2917 and 3.4908 mm, respectively, whereas for WE-VIBE-3D-MRI vs. CT they were 0.3162 and 3.1599 mm. The mean differences of the WE and Dixon methods were equivalent (P = 0.0292). However, the maximum difference was not equivalent between the two methods and it was higher in WE method. Lin’s concordance-correlation coefficient showed poor agreement between Dixon and WE methods. The mean differences between the CT and 3D-MRI models were significantly higher in the femoral shaft area (P = 0.0004 for WE and P = 0.0015 for Dixon) than in the other areas. The maximum difference was greatest in the intertrochanteric area for both techniques. CONCLUSION: The difference between 3D-MR and CT models were acceptable with a maximal difference below 3.5mm. WE and Dixon fat suppression methods were equivalent. The mean difference was highest at the femoral shaft area, which was off-center from the magnetization field.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8087022
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80870222021-05-06 Differences between 3D isovoxel fat suppression VIBE MRI and CT models of proximal femur osseous anatomy: A preliminary study for bone tumor resection planning Chee, Choong Guen Chung, Hye Won Kim, Wanlim Yoon, Min A. Shin, So Myoung Kim, Guk Bae PLoS One Research Article PURPOSE: To evaluate the osseous anatomy of the proximal femur extracted from a 3D-MRI volumetric interpolated breath-hold (VIBE) sequence using either a Dixon or water excitation (WE) fat suppression method, and to measure the overall difference using CT as a reference standard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed imaging of adult patients with hip pain who underwent 3D hip MRI and CT. A semi-automatically segmented CT model served as the reference standard, and MRI segmentation was performed manually for each unilateral hip joint. The differences between Dixon-VIBE-3D-MRI vs. CT, and WE-VIBE-3D-MRI vs. CT, were measured. Equivalence tests between Dixon-VIBE and WE-VIBE models were performed with a threshold of 0.1 mm. Bland–Altman plots and Lin’s concordance-correlation coefficient were used to analyze the agreement between WE and Dixon sequences. Subgroup analyses were performed for the femoral head/neck, intertrochanteric, and femoral shaft areas. RESULTS: The mean and maximum differences between Dixon-VIBE-3D-MRI vs. CT were 0.2917 and 3.4908 mm, respectively, whereas for WE-VIBE-3D-MRI vs. CT they were 0.3162 and 3.1599 mm. The mean differences of the WE and Dixon methods were equivalent (P = 0.0292). However, the maximum difference was not equivalent between the two methods and it was higher in WE method. Lin’s concordance-correlation coefficient showed poor agreement between Dixon and WE methods. The mean differences between the CT and 3D-MRI models were significantly higher in the femoral shaft area (P = 0.0004 for WE and P = 0.0015 for Dixon) than in the other areas. The maximum difference was greatest in the intertrochanteric area for both techniques. CONCLUSION: The difference between 3D-MR and CT models were acceptable with a maximal difference below 3.5mm. WE and Dixon fat suppression methods were equivalent. The mean difference was highest at the femoral shaft area, which was off-center from the magnetization field. Public Library of Science 2021-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8087022/ /pubmed/33930040 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250334 Text en © 2021 Chee et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chee, Choong Guen
Chung, Hye Won
Kim, Wanlim
Yoon, Min A.
Shin, So Myoung
Kim, Guk Bae
Differences between 3D isovoxel fat suppression VIBE MRI and CT models of proximal femur osseous anatomy: A preliminary study for bone tumor resection planning
title Differences between 3D isovoxel fat suppression VIBE MRI and CT models of proximal femur osseous anatomy: A preliminary study for bone tumor resection planning
title_full Differences between 3D isovoxel fat suppression VIBE MRI and CT models of proximal femur osseous anatomy: A preliminary study for bone tumor resection planning
title_fullStr Differences between 3D isovoxel fat suppression VIBE MRI and CT models of proximal femur osseous anatomy: A preliminary study for bone tumor resection planning
title_full_unstemmed Differences between 3D isovoxel fat suppression VIBE MRI and CT models of proximal femur osseous anatomy: A preliminary study for bone tumor resection planning
title_short Differences between 3D isovoxel fat suppression VIBE MRI and CT models of proximal femur osseous anatomy: A preliminary study for bone tumor resection planning
title_sort differences between 3d isovoxel fat suppression vibe mri and ct models of proximal femur osseous anatomy: a preliminary study for bone tumor resection planning
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8087022/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33930040
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250334
work_keys_str_mv AT cheechoongguen differencesbetween3disovoxelfatsuppressionvibemriandctmodelsofproximalfemurosseousanatomyapreliminarystudyforbonetumorresectionplanning
AT chunghyewon differencesbetween3disovoxelfatsuppressionvibemriandctmodelsofproximalfemurosseousanatomyapreliminarystudyforbonetumorresectionplanning
AT kimwanlim differencesbetween3disovoxelfatsuppressionvibemriandctmodelsofproximalfemurosseousanatomyapreliminarystudyforbonetumorresectionplanning
AT yoonmina differencesbetween3disovoxelfatsuppressionvibemriandctmodelsofproximalfemurosseousanatomyapreliminarystudyforbonetumorresectionplanning
AT shinsomyoung differencesbetween3disovoxelfatsuppressionvibemriandctmodelsofproximalfemurosseousanatomyapreliminarystudyforbonetumorresectionplanning
AT kimgukbae differencesbetween3disovoxelfatsuppressionvibemriandctmodelsofproximalfemurosseousanatomyapreliminarystudyforbonetumorresectionplanning