Motion correction improves image quality of dGEMRIC in finger joints

• Published in: European journal of radiology Vol. 80; no. 3; pp. e427 - e431
• Main Authors: Miese, Falk, Kröpil, Patric, Ostendorf, Benedikt, Scherer, Axel, Buchbender, Christian, Quentin, Michael, Lanzman, Rotem S., Blondin, Dirk, Schneider, Matthias, Bittersohl, Bernd, Zilkens, Christoph, Jellus, Vladimir, Mamisch, Tallal Ch, Wittsack, Hans-Jörg
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ireland Elsevier Ireland Ltd 01.12.2011
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Artefacts; Arthritis; Cartilage; Cartilage, Articular - pathology; DGEMRIC; Female; Finger; Finger Joint - pathology; Humans; Image Enhancement - methods; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Middle Aged; Molecular imaging; Motion; Motion correction; Movement; MRI; Radiology; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Young Adult; Molecular imaging; Motion correction; DGEMRIC; Cartilage; MRI; Finger; Artefacts; Arthritis
• ISSN: 0720-048X; 1872-7727; 1872-7727
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.006

To assess motion artifacts in dGEMRIC of finger joints and to evaluate the effectiveness of motion correction. In 40 subjects (26 patients with finger arthritis and 14 healthy volunteers) dGEMRIC of metacarpophalangeal joint II was performed. Imaging used a dual flip angle approach (TE 3.72 ms, TR 15 ms, flip angles 5° and 26°). Two sets of T1 maps were calculated for dGEMRIC analysis from the imaging data for each subject: one with and one without motion correction. To compare image quality, visual grading analysis and precision of dGEMRIC measurement of both dGEMRIC maps for each case were evaluated. Motion artifacts were present in 82% (33/40) of uncorrected dGEMRIC maps. Motion artifacts were graded as severe or as rendering evaluation impossible in 43% (17/40) of uncorrected dGEMRIC maps. Motion corrected maps showed significantly less motion artifacts ( P < 0.001) and were graded as evaluable in 97% (39/40) of cases. Precision was significantly higher in motion corrected images (coefficient of variation (CV = .176 ± .077), compared to uncorrected images (CV .445 ± .347) ( P < .001). Motion corrected dGERMIC was different in volunteers and patients ( P = .044), whereas uncorrected dGEMRIC was not ( P = .234). Motion correction improves image quality, dGEMRIC measurement precision and diagnostic performance in dGEMRIC of finger joints.