Technical Developments: Zero Echo Time Imaging of the Shoulder: Enhanced Osseous Detail by Using MR Imaging

As evidenced by comparison of clinical measurements and grades and direct comparison with standard-of-care MR imaging, zero echo time MR imaging provides additional morphologic information comparable to that provided by CT and may obviate CT imaging in some cases of shoulder assessment.

Purpose

To determine the intermodality agreement of morphologic grading and clinically relevant quantitative measurements between computed tomography (CT) and zero echo time (ZTE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the shoulder. The primary objective was to demonstrate the clinical applicability of ZTE in osseous shoulder imaging.

Materials and Methods

Thirty-four patients undergoing standard-of-care (SOC) MR imaging with concomitant CT were enrolled in this institutional review board–approved study. ZTE images were acquired after SOC MR imaging. Glenoid morphology (version, vault depth, erosion), injury or disease (osteoarthritis, Bankart and Hill-Sachs lesions, subchondral cysts), and evidence of prior surgery were graded or measured. κ Values, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were used to establish agreement. Qualitative comparison of osseous findings was performed between ZTE and SOC MR imaging.

Results

Binary classification and nominal/ordinal grades showed substantial or better agreement between raters and modalities (κ or ICC > 0.6). Continuous measurements exhibited strong correlation between raters and modalities, although not universally. Bankart ICCs were not significant, owing to low prevalence. ZTE exhibited greater conspicuity of enthesopathic cysts and marrow edema. In 21 of 34 cases, ZTE imaging of osseous features exceeded SOC MR imaging.

Conclusion

ZTE MR imaging provides “CT-like” contrast for bone. The results of this study demonstrate strong intermodality agreement between measurements and grades from CT and ZTE images in a cohort of patients undergoing imaging with both modalities. A majority of ZTE image sets provided superior visualization of osseous features when compared with SOC MR image sets. This superiority coupled with strong quantitative agreement with CT suggests that ZTE may be used clinically in lieu of CT in some cases.

© RSNA, 2017

Online supplemental material is available for this article.

References

  • 1. Koff MF, Shah P, Pownder S, et al. Correlation of meniscal T2* with multiphoton microscopy, and change of articular cartilage T2 in an ovine model of meniscal repair. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013;21(8):1083–1091. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Sneag DB, Shah P, Koff MF, Lim WY, Rodeo SA, Potter HG. Quantitative ultrashort echo time magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of postoperative menisci: a pilot study. HSS J 2015;11(2):123–129. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Bae WC, Du J, Bydder GM, Chung CB. Conventional and ultrashort time-to-echo magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage, meniscus, and intervertebral disk. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2010;21(5):275–289. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Koff MF, Pownder SL, Shah PH, Yang LW, Potter HG. Ultrashort echo imaging of cyclically loaded rabbit patellar tendon. J Biomech 2014;47(13):3428–3432. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Chang EY, Du J, Statum S, Pauli C, Chung CB. Quantitative bi-component T2* analysis of histologically normal Achilles tendons. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J 2015;5(2):58–62. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Weiger M, Pruessmann KP. MRI with zero echo time. eMagRes 2012;1(2):311–321. Google Scholar
  • 7. Kuethe DO, Caprihan A, Lowe IJ, Madio DP, Gach HM. Transforming NMR data despite missing points. J Magn Reson 1999;139(1):18–25. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Weiger M, Brunner DO, Dietrich BE, Müller CF, Pruessmann KP. ZTE imaging in humans. Magn Reson Med 2013;70(2):328–332. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Bracher AK, et al. High-resolution ZTE imaging of human teeth. NMR Biomed 2012;25(10):1144–1151. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Wiesinger F, Sacolick LI, Menini A, et al. Zero TE MR bone imaging in the head. Magn Reson Med 2016;75(1):107–114. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Delso G, Wiesinger F, Sacolick LI, et al. Clinical evaluation of zero-echo-time MR imaging for the segmentation of the skull. J Nucl Med 2015;56(3):417–422. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Sekine T, Ter Voert EE, Warnock G, et al. Clinical Evaluation of zero-echo-time attenuation correction for brain 18F-FDG PET/MRI: comparison with atlas attenuation correction. J Nucl Med 2016;57(12):1927–1932. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Tustison NJ, Avants BB, Cook PA, et al. N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29(6):1310–1320. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Saliken DJ, Bornes TD, Bouliane MJ, Sheps DM, Beaupre LA. Imaging methods for quantifying glenoid and Hill-Sachs bone loss in traumatic instability of the shoulder: a scoping review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015;16:164. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Lee RK, Griffith JF, Tong MM, Sharma N, Yung P. Glenoid bone loss: assessment with MR imaging. Radiology 2013;267(2):496–502. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Kodali P, Jones MH, Polster J, Miniaci A, Fening SD. Accuracy of measurement of Hill-Sachs lesions with computed tomography. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20(8):1328–1334. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74(7):1032–1037. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Budge MD, Lewis GS, Schaefer E, Coquia S, Flemming DJ, Armstrong AD. Comparison of standard two-dimensional and three-dimensional corrected glenoid version measurements. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20(4):577–583. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Hoenecke HR Jr, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, D’Lima DD. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19(2):166–171. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 1999;14(6):756–760. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37(5):360–363. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Oshtory R, Lindsey DP, Giori NJ, Mirza FM. Bioabsorbable tricalcium phosphate bone cement strengthens fixation of suture anchors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(12):3406–3412. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Sharma GB, McMahon PJ, Robertson DD. Structure modeling of the glenoid: relevance to shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2014;32(11):1471–1478. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received April 20, 2017; revision requested June 8; revision received July 31; accepted August 12; final version accepted September 7.
Published online: Nov 08 2017
Published in print: Mar 2018