Published in

Elsevier, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 9(17), p. 1219-1227, 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2009.03.018

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Multimodal approach in the use of clinical scoring, morphological MRI and biochemical T2-mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging in their ability to assess differences between cartilage repair tissue after microfracture therapy and matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation: a pilot study

Journal article published in 2009 by Gh H. Welsch ORCID, S. Trattnig, S. Domayer, S. Marlovits, Lm M. White, Tc C. Mamisch
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present pilot study is to show initial results of a multimodal approach using clinical scoring, morphological magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biochemical T2-relaxation and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in their ability to assess differences between cartilage repair tissue after microfracture therapy (MFX) and matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT). METHOD: Twenty patients were cross-sectionally evaluated at different post-operative intervals from 12 to 63 months after MFX and 12-59 months after MACT. The two groups were matched by age (MFX: 36.0+/-10.4 years; MACT: 35.1+/-7.7 years) and post-operative interval (MFX: 32.6+/-16.7 months; MACT: 31.7+/-18.3 months). After clinical evaluation using the Lysholm score, 3T-MRI was performed obtaining the MR observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) score as well as T2-mapping and DWI for multi-parametric MRI. Quantitative T2-relaxation was achieved using a multi-echo spin-echo sequence; semi-quantitative diffusion-quotient (signal intensity without diffusion-weighting divided by signal intensity with diffusion weighting) was prepared by a partially balanced, steady-state gradient-echo pulse sequence. RESULTS: No differences in Lysholm (P=0.420) or MOCART (P=0.209) score were observed between MFX and MACT. T2-mapping showed lower T2 values after MFX compared to MACT (P=0.039). DWI distinguished between healthy cartilage and cartilage repair tissue in both procedures (MFX: P=0.001; MACT: P=0.007). Correlations were found between the Lysholm and the MOCART score (Pearson: 0.484; P=0.031), between the Lysholm score and DWI (Pearson:-0.557; P=0.011) and a trend between the Lysholm score and T2 (Person: 0.304; P=0.193). CONCLUSION: Using T2-mapping and DWI, additional information could be gained compared to clinical scoring or morphological MRI. In combination clinical, MR-morphological and MR-biochemical parameters can be seen as a promising multimodal tool in the follow-up of cartilage repair.