Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment of Cartilage Status: A Comparison Between Young Men With and Without Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment of Cartilage Status: A Comparison Between Young Men With and Without Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.arthro.2013.09.075
复制
发表时间：
2013-12-01
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Chen, Shiyi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Li, Hong;Tao, Hongyue;Chen, Shiyi
目的：在年轻成年男性前交叉韧带重建（ACLR）后至少2年，使用磁共振成像评估膝关节的软骨状态。研究方法：30例单侧ACLR的年轻男性患者和15例年龄和体重指数匹配的健康男性（对照组）参加了这项研究。所有参与者都接受了定量磁共振成像扫描。使用实体模型软件分割三维双回波稳态矢状面图像以计算平均软骨厚度，使用Siemens软件（Siemens，埃尔兰根，德国）分割多回波矢状面图像以确定每个软骨板的T2弛豫时间。结果如下：ACLR组和对照组之间每个软骨板的平均厚度没有统计学显著差异（股骨外侧软骨P = .9616，胫骨外侧软骨P = .5962，髌骨软骨P = .9328，股骨内侧软骨P = .9712，股骨内侧软骨P = .4408，胫骨内侧软骨P = 0.1933）。ACLR组的股骨外侧软骨（P < .001）、胫骨外侧（P = .0011）、胫骨托（P = .0028）、股骨内侧（P < .001）和胫骨内侧（P <.001）的T2值显著高于对照组。此外，两组髌骨的T2值无差异（P = 0.2152）。内侧间室软骨在ACLR组中显示出更高的软骨T2值变化百分比。结论：虽然ACLR组和对照组之间没有检测到软骨厚度的差异，但ACLR患者的平均T2弛豫时间显著长于对照组。
Purpose: To assess the cartilage status of the knee joints using magnetic resonance imaging at least 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in young adult men. Methods: Thirty young male patients with unilateral ACLR and 15 age-matched and body mass index-matched healthy men (controls) participated in this study. All participants underwent quantitative magnetic resonance imaging scans. Three-dimensional dual-echo steady-state sagittal images were segmented using solid model software to calculate the mean cartilage thickness, and multi-echo sagittal images were segmented with Siemens software (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) to determine the T2 relaxation time of each cartilage plate. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean thickness of each cartilage plate between the ACLR and control groups (P = .9616 for lateral femoral cartilage, P = .5962 for lateral tibial cartilage, P = .9328 for patellar cartilage, P = .9712 for trochlear cartilage, P = .4408 for medial femoral cartilage, and P = .1933 for medial tibial cartilage). The ACLR group had significantly higher T2 values than the control group in the lateral femoral cartilage (P < .001), lateral tibia (P = .0011), trochlea (P = .0028), medial femur (P < .001), and medial tibia (P < .001). In addition, the patella showed no difference in T2 values between the 2 groups (P = .2152). The medial compartment cartilage showed a much higher percentage change in cartilage T2 values in the ACLR group. Conclusions: Although no difference in cartilage thickness was detected between the ACLR group and the control group, the mean T2 relaxation time in the ACLR patients was significantly longer than that in control subjects.