American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 165, 615-620, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Assessment of articular cartilage thickness of the humeral head: MR- anatomic correlation in cadavers

J Hodler, RA Loredo, C Longo, D Trudell, JS Yu and D Resnick
Balgrist Clinic, University of Zurich, Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate several commonly used MR sequences to determine how accurately each demonstrates the thickness of the articular cartilage of the humeral head. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ten cadaveric shoulders (age at death, 58-92 years; mean, 79 years) were imaged with fat-suppressed transaxial T1-weighted spin-echo three-dimensional gradient-recalled sequences, both before and after injection of 12 ml of diluted gadopentetate dimeglumine. Articular cartilage was measured to the nearest 10th of a millimeter on the MR images and corresponding anatomic sections. RESULTS. Cartilage could not be differentiated from surrounding structures in 14 of 112 locations (13%) on the spin-echo images obtained without contrast material, in 4 of 112 locations (4%) on the spin-echo images obtained with contrast material, in 4 of 112 locations (4%) on the gradient-echo images obtained without contrast material, and in 6 of 112 locations (5%) on the gradient-echo images obtained with contrast material. Mean true cartilage thickness was 1.23 mm (SD, 0.52 mm). The mean MR- anatomic differences (absolute values) were 0.38 mm for the spin-echo images obtained without contrast material, 0.42 mm for the spin-echo images obtained with contrast material, 0.49 mm for the gradient-echo images obtained without contrast material, and 0.37 mm for the gradient- echo images obtained with contrast material. There was a tendency to overestimate thin cartilage and to underestimate thick cartilage. CONCLUSION. Several of the routinely used MR sequences, with and without intraarticular contrast medium, may cause errors in the assessment of the articular cartilage of the humeral head. Some of these errors result from either insufficient contrast between cartilage and surrounding structures or inadequately concentrated contrast medium.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Saupe, C. W. A. Pfirrmann, M. R. Schmid, T. Schertler, M. Manestar, and D. Weishaupt MR Imaging of Cartilage in Cadaveric Wrists: Comparison between Imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T and Gross Pathologic Inspection Radiology, April 1, 2007; 243(1): 180 - 187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Y. El-Khoury, K. J. Alliman, H. J. Lundberg, M. J. Rudert, T. D. Brown, and C. L. Saltzman Cartilage Thickness in Cadaveric Ankles: Measurement with Double-Contrast Multi-Detector Row CT Arthrography versus MR Imaging Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 768 - 773. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W A Schmidt, H Schmidt, B Schicke, and E Gromnica-Ihle Standard reference values for musculoskeletal ultrasonography Ann Rheum Dis, August 1, 2004; 63(8): 988 - 994. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D R Jeffrey and I Watt Imaging hyaline cartilage Br. J. Radiol., November 1, 2003; 76(911): 777 - 787. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. V. Guntern, C. W. A. Pfirrmann, M. R. Schmid, M. Zanetti, C. A. Binkert, A. G. Schneeberger, and J. Hodler Articular Cartilage Lesions of the Glenohumeral Joint: Diagnostic Effectiveness of MR Arthrography and Prevalence in Patients with Subacromial Impingement Syndrome Radiology, January 1, 2003; 226(1): 165 - 170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Watrin, J. P. B. Ruaud, P. T. A. Olivier, N. C. Guingamp, P. D. Gonord, P. A. Netter, A. G. Blum, G. M. Guillot, P. M. Gillet, and D. H. J. Loeuille T2 Mapping of Rat Patellar Cartilage Radiology, May 1, 2001; 219(2): 395 - 402. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				C. J. Seibold, T. A. Mallisee, S. J. Erickson, M. D. Boynton, W. G. Raasch, and M. E. Timins Rotator Cuff: Evaluation with US and MR Imaging RadioGraphics, May 1, 1999; 19(3): 685 - 705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]