KLI

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

Metadata Downloads
Abstract
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.
Author(s)
김국배신소명지충근정혜원김완림윤민아
Issued Date
2021
Type
Article
Keyword
3D MR3D CTcomparison studysurgery planning
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0250334
URI
http://oak.ulsan.ac.kr/handle/2021.oak/8051
https://ulsan-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_a8c8716bd29841fe9d73a22cdcd2bc5b&context=PC&vid=ULSAN&lang=ko_KR&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,Differences%20between%203D%20isovoxel%20fat%20suppression%20VIBE%20MRI%20and%20CT%20models%20of%20proximal%20femur%20osseous%20anatomy:%20A%20preliminary%20study%20for%20bone%20tumor%20resection%20planning&offset=0&pcAvailability=true
Publisher
PLOS ONE
Location
미국
Language
영어
ISSN
1932-6203
Citation Volume
16
Citation Number
4
Citation Start Page
0
Citation End Page
0
Appears in Collections:
Medicine > Medicine
Authorize & License
  • AuthorizeOpen
Files in This Item:
  • There are no files associated with this item.

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.