T1ρ Hip Cartilage Mapping in Assessing Patients With Cam Morphology: How Can We Optimize the Regions of Interest?

Helen Anwander, Kawan S Rakhra, Gerd Melkus, Paul E Beaulé
Author Information
  1. Helen Anwander: Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, K1H 8L6, Canada.
  2. Kawan S Rakhra: Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
  3. Gerd Melkus: Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
  4. Paul E Beaulé: Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, K1H 8L6, Canada. pbeaule@ottawahospital.on.ca.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: T1ρ MRI has been shown feasible to detect the biochemical status of Hip Cartilage, but various region-of-interest strategies have been used, compromising the reproducibility and comparability between different institutions and studies.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were (1) to determine representative regions of interest (ROIs) for cartilage T1ρ mapping in hips with a cam deformity; and (2) to assess intra- and interobserver reliability for cartilage T1ρ mapping in hips with a cam deformity.
METHODS: The local ethics committee approved this prospective study with written informed consent obtained. Between 2010 and 2013, in 54 hips (54 patients), T1ρ 1.5-T MRI was performed. Thirty-eight hips (38 patients; 89% male) with an average age of 35 ± 7.5 years (range, 23-51 tears) were diagnosed with a cam deformity; 16 hips (16 patients; 87% male) with an average age of 34 ± 7 years (range, 23-47 years) were included in the control group. Of the 38 patients with a cam deformity, 20 were pain-free and 18 symptomatic patients underwent surgery after 6 months of failed nonsurgical management of antiinflammatories and physical therapy. Exclusion criteria were radiologic sings of osteoarthritis with Tönnis Grade 2 or higher as well as previous hip surgery. Three region-of-interest (ROI) selections were analyzed: Method 1: as a whole; Method 2: as 36 to 54 small ROIs (sections of 30° in the sagittal plane and 3 mm in the transverse plane); Method 3a: as six ROIs (sections of 90° in the sagittal plane and one-third of the acetabular depth in the transverse plane: the anterosuperior and posterosuperior quadrants, divided into lateral, intermediate, and medial thirds); and Method 3b: as the ratio (anterosuperior over posterosuperior quadrant). ROIs in Method 3 represent the region of macroscopic cartilage damage, described in intraoperative findings. To asses interobserver reliability, 10 patients were analyzed by two observers (HA, GM). For intraobserver reliability, 20 hip MRIs were analyzed twice by one observer (HA). To assess interscan reliability, three patients underwent two scans within a time period of 2 weeks and were analyzed twice by one observer (HA). T1ρ values were compared using Student's t test. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and root mean square coefficient of variation (RMS-CV) were used to analyze intraobserver, interobserver, and interscan reliability.
RESULTS: patients with a cam deformity showed increased T1ρ values in the whole Hip Cartilage (mean: 34.0 ± 3.8 ms versus 31.4 ± 3.0 ms; mean difference: 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-0.4; p = 0.019; Method 1), mainly anterolateral (2), in the lateral and medial thirds of the anterosuperior quadrant (mean: 32.3 ± 4.9 ms versus 29.4 ± 4.1 ms; mean difference: 3.0; 95% CI, 5.8-0.2; p = 0.039 and mean 36.5 ± 5.6 ms versus 32.6 ± 3.8 ms; mean difference: 3.8; 95% CI, 6.9-0.8; p = 0.014), and in the medial third of the posterosuperior quadrant (mean: 34.4 ± 5.5 ms versus 31.1 ± 3.9 ms; mean difference: 3.1; 95% CI, 6.2-0.1; p = 0.039) (3a). The ratio was increased in the lateral third (mean: 1.00 ± 0.12 versus 0.90 ± 0.15; mean difference: 0.10; 95% CI, 0.18-0.2; p = 0.018) (3b). ICC and RMS-CV were 0.965 and 4% (intraobserver), 0.953 and 4% (interobserver), and 0.988 (all p < 0.001) and 9% (inter-MR scan), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Cartilage T1ρ MRI mapping in hips is feasible at 1.5 T with strong inter-, intraobserver, and inter-MR scan reliability. The six ROIs (Method 3) showed a difference of T1ρ values anterolateral quadrant, consistent with the dominant area of cartilage injury in cam femoroacetabular impingement, and antero- and posteromedial, indicating involvement of the entire Hip Cartilage health. The six ROIs (Method 3) have been shown feasible to assess cartilage damage in hips with a cam deformity using T1ρ MRI. We suggest applying this ROI selection for further studies using quantitative MRI for assessment of cartilage damage in hips with a cam deformity to achieve better comparability and reproducibility between different studies. The application of this ROI selection on hips with other deformities (eg, pincer deformity, developmental dysplasia of the hip, and acetabular retroversion) has to be analyzed and potentially adapted.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

References

  1. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010 Nov;18(11):1421-8 [PMID: 20727414]
  2. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Apr;23(4):547-53 [PMID: 16523468]
  3. Arthroscopy. 2015 Aug;31(8):1497-506 [PMID: 25896275]
  4. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Oct;23(10):3094-100 [PMID: 25481808]
  5. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Feb;466(2):273-80 [PMID: 18196406]
  6. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Dec;470(12 ):3361-7 [PMID: 23001504]
  7. J Orthop Res. 2011 Sep;29(9):1305-11 [PMID: 21437964]
  8. Am J Sports Med. 2011 Feb;39(2):296-303 [PMID: 21098820]
  9. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Nov 3;92 (15):2557-69 [PMID: 21048174]
  10. Arthroscopy. 2008 Jun;24(6):669-75 [PMID: 18514110]
  11. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 Aug;23(8):1337-42 [PMID: 25819578]
  12. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007 Jul;15(7):789-97 [PMID: 17307365]
  13. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Jul;87(7):1012-8 [PMID: 15972923]
  14. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Dec;32(10 ):1290-6 [PMID: 25111625]
  15. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Oct 20;92(14):2436-44 [PMID: 20962194]
  16. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Apr;473(4):1333-41 [PMID: 25367110]
  17. Clin J Sport Med. 2014 May;24(3):218-25 [PMID: 24172654]
  18. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Sep;20(3):519-25 [PMID: 15332262]
  19. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995 Oct;53(10):1182-92 [PMID: 7562173]
  20. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Sep;31(7):1129-36 [PMID: 23684960]
  21. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009 Oct;17 (10 ):1297-306 [PMID: 19446663]
  22. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Apr;473(4):1325-32 [PMID: 25082625]
  23. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Jul;28(1):227-35 [PMID: 18581346]
  24. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2013 Jun;3(3):162-74 [PMID: 23833729]
  25. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012 Oct;20(10):1127-33 [PMID: 22771774]
  26. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Dec;(417):112-20 [PMID: 14646708]
  27. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Oct;41(10 ):2353-61 [PMID: 23925576]
  28. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Sep;94(9):1187-92 [PMID: 22933489]
  29. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Feb;469(2):464-9 [PMID: 20953854]
  30. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2014 Nov;40(4):699-710 [PMID: 25437286]

MeSH Term

Adult
Biomechanical Phenomena
Cartilage, Articular
Case-Control Studies
Female
Femoracetabular Impingement
Hip Joint
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Range of Motion, Articular
Reproducibility of Results
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.00±3T1ρcartilage1hipscamdeformity5Methodms2patientsmean4hipROIsreliabilitypMRI6versusdifference:95%=interobserveranalyzedintraobservermean:8CIfeasiblestudiesstudymappingassess54years34ROIplanesixanterosuperiorposterosuperiorlateralmedialquadrantdamageHAvaluesusingshownregion-of-interestusedreproducibilitycomparabilitydifferent38maleaverageage7range1620underwentsurgerywhole36sectionssagittaltransverseacetabularthirdsratio10twotwiceoneobserverinterscancoefficientICCRMS-CVPatientsshowedincreased31329039third4%inter-MRscanCartilageselectionBACKGROUND:detectbiochemicalstatusvariousstrategiescompromisinginstitutionsQUESTIONS/PURPOSES:purposesdeterminerepresentativeregionsinterestintra-METHODS:localethicscommitteeapprovedprospectivewritteninformedconsentobtained201020135-TperformedThirty-eight89%3523-51tearsdiagnosed87%23-47includedcontrolgrouppain-free18symptomaticmonthsfailednonsurgicalmanagementantiinflammatoriesphysicaltherapyExclusioncriteriaradiologicsingsosteoarthritisTönnisGradehigherwellpreviousThreeselectionsanalyzed:1:2:small30°mm3a:90°one-thirddepthplane:quadrantsdividedintermediate3b:representregionmacroscopicdescribedintraoperativefindingsassesobserversGMMRIsthreescanswithintimeperiodweekscomparedStudent'sttestInterclasscorrelationrootsquarevariationanalyzeRESULTS:confidenceinterval[CI]7-0019mainlyanterolateral298-09-00142-03a0012901518-00183b965953988<0019%respectivelyCONCLUSIONS:Tstronginter-differenceanterolateral quadrantconsistentdominantareainjuryfemoroacetabularimpingementantero-posteromedialindicatinginvolvemententirehealthsuggestapplyingquantitativeassessmentachievebetterapplicationdeformitiesegpincerdevelopmentaldysplasiaretroversionpotentiallyadaptedLEVELOFEVIDENCE:LevelIIIdiagnosticHipMappingAssessingCamMorphology:CanOptimizeRegionsInterest?

Similar Articles

Cited By