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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |