Cargando…

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three‐Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly utilized as a radiation‐free alternative to computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis and treatment planning of musculoskeletal pathologies. MR imaging of hard tissues such as cortical bone remains challenging due to their low proton density and shor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Florkow, Mateusz C., Willemsen, Koen, Mascarenhas, Vasco V., Oei, Edwin H.G., van Stralen, Marijn, Seevinck, Peter R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35044717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28067
_version_ 1784752273346265088
author Florkow, Mateusz C.
Willemsen, Koen
Mascarenhas, Vasco V.
Oei, Edwin H.G.
van Stralen, Marijn
Seevinck, Peter R.
author_facet Florkow, Mateusz C.
Willemsen, Koen
Mascarenhas, Vasco V.
Oei, Edwin H.G.
van Stralen, Marijn
Seevinck, Peter R.
author_sort Florkow, Mateusz C.
collection PubMed
description Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly utilized as a radiation‐free alternative to computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis and treatment planning of musculoskeletal pathologies. MR imaging of hard tissues such as cortical bone remains challenging due to their low proton density and short transverse relaxation times, rendering bone tissues as nonspecific low signal structures on MR images obtained from most sequences. Developments in MR image acquisition and post‐processing have opened the path for enhanced MR‐based bone visualization aiming to provide a CT‐like contrast and, as such, ease clinical interpretation. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of studies comparing MR and CT imaging for diagnostic and treatment planning purposes in orthopedic care, with a special focus on selective bone visualization, bone segmentation, and three‐dimensional (3D) modeling. This review discusses conventional gradient‐echo derived techniques as well as dedicated short echo time acquisition techniques and post‐processing techniques, including the generation of synthetic CT, in the context of 3D and specific bone visualization. Based on the reviewed literature, it may be concluded that the recent developments in MRI‐based bone visualization are promising. MRI alone provides valuable information on both bone and soft tissues for a broad range of applications including diagnostics, 3D modeling, and treatment planning in multiple anatomical regions, including the skull, spine, shoulder, pelvis, and long bones. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9305220
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93052202022-07-28 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three‐Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review Florkow, Mateusz C. Willemsen, Koen Mascarenhas, Vasco V. Oei, Edwin H.G. van Stralen, Marijn Seevinck, Peter R. J Magn Reson Imaging Reviews Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly utilized as a radiation‐free alternative to computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis and treatment planning of musculoskeletal pathologies. MR imaging of hard tissues such as cortical bone remains challenging due to their low proton density and short transverse relaxation times, rendering bone tissues as nonspecific low signal structures on MR images obtained from most sequences. Developments in MR image acquisition and post‐processing have opened the path for enhanced MR‐based bone visualization aiming to provide a CT‐like contrast and, as such, ease clinical interpretation. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of studies comparing MR and CT imaging for diagnostic and treatment planning purposes in orthopedic care, with a special focus on selective bone visualization, bone segmentation, and three‐dimensional (3D) modeling. This review discusses conventional gradient‐echo derived techniques as well as dedicated short echo time acquisition techniques and post‐processing techniques, including the generation of synthetic CT, in the context of 3D and specific bone visualization. Based on the reviewed literature, it may be concluded that the recent developments in MRI‐based bone visualization are promising. MRI alone provides valuable information on both bone and soft tissues for a broad range of applications including diagnostics, 3D modeling, and treatment planning in multiple anatomical regions, including the skull, spine, shoulder, pelvis, and long bones. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022-01-19 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9305220/ /pubmed/35044717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28067 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Reviews
Florkow, Mateusz C.
Willemsen, Koen
Mascarenhas, Vasco V.
Oei, Edwin H.G.
van Stralen, Marijn
Seevinck, Peter R.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three‐Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review
title Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three‐Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review
title_full Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three‐Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review
title_fullStr Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three‐Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review
title_full_unstemmed Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three‐Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review
title_short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three‐Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review
title_sort magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for three‐dimensional bone imaging of musculoskeletal pathologies: a review
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35044717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28067
work_keys_str_mv AT florkowmateuszc magneticresonanceimagingversuscomputedtomographyforthreedimensionalboneimagingofmusculoskeletalpathologiesareview
AT willemsenkoen magneticresonanceimagingversuscomputedtomographyforthreedimensionalboneimagingofmusculoskeletalpathologiesareview
AT mascarenhasvascov magneticresonanceimagingversuscomputedtomographyforthreedimensionalboneimagingofmusculoskeletalpathologiesareview
AT oeiedwinhg magneticresonanceimagingversuscomputedtomographyforthreedimensionalboneimagingofmusculoskeletalpathologiesareview
AT vanstralenmarijn magneticresonanceimagingversuscomputedtomographyforthreedimensionalboneimagingofmusculoskeletalpathologiesareview
AT seevinckpeterr magneticresonanceimagingversuscomputedtomographyforthreedimensionalboneimagingofmusculoskeletalpathologiesareview