Emerging Technology in Musculoskeletal MRI and CT

Abstract

The emerging technological advances in musculoskeletal MRI and CT offer exciting new opportunities to decrease examination times and improve image quality, although whether they result in higher diagnostic performance requires further investigation.

This article provides a focused overview of emerging technology in musculoskeletal MRI and CT. These technological advances have primarily focused on decreasing examination times, obtaining higher quality images, providing more convenient and economical imaging alternatives, and improving patient safety through lower radiation doses. New MRI acceleration methods using deep learning and novel reconstruction algorithms can reduce scanning times while maintaining high image quality. New synthetic techniques are now available that provide multiple tissue contrasts from a limited amount of MRI and CT data. Modern low-field-strength MRI scanners can provide a more convenient and economical imaging alternative in clinical practice, while clinical 7.0-T scanners have the potential to maximize image quality. Three-dimensional MRI curved planar reformation and cinematic rendering can provide improved methods for image representation. Photon-counting detector CT can provide lower radiation doses, higher spatial resolution, greater tissue contrast, and reduced noise in comparison with currently used energy-integrating detector CT scanners. Technological advances have also been made in challenging areas of musculoskeletal imaging, including MR neurography, imaging around metal, and dual-energy CT. While the preliminary results of these emerging technologies have been encouraging, whether they result in higher diagnostic performance requires further investigation.

References

1. Del Grande F, Guggenberger R, Fritz J. Rapid musculoskeletal MRI in 2021: value and optimized use of widely accessible techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216(3):704–717. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2. Del Grande F, Delcogliano M, Guglielmi R, et al. Fully automated 10-minute 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE TSE MRI of the knee in adults: a multicenter, multireader, multifield-strength validation study. Invest Radiol 2018;53(11):689–697. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3. Fritz J, Ahlawat S, Fritz B, et al. 10-min 3D turbo spin echo MRI of the knee in children: arthroscopy-validated accuracy for the diagnosis of internal derangement. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49(7):e139–e151. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
4. Kalia V, Fritz B, Johnson R, Gilson WD, Raithel E, Fritz J. CAIPIRINHA accelerated SPACE enables 10-min isotropic 3D TSE MRI of the ankle for optimized visualization of curved and oblique ligaments and tendons. Eur Radiol 2017;27(9):3652–3661. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5. Shakoor D, Guermazi A, Kijowski R, et al. Cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: a meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of 3D MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50(5):1545–1560. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6. Shakoor D, Kijowski R, Guermazi A, et al. Diagnosis of knee meniscal injuries by using three-dimensional MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance. Radiology 2019;290(2):435–445. Link, Google Scholar
7. Shakoor D, Guermazi A, Kijowski R, et al. Diagnostic performance of three-dimensional MRI for depicting cartilage defects in the knee: a meta-analysis. Radiology 2018;289(1):71–82. Link, Google Scholar
8. Fritz J, Raithel E, Thawait GK, Gilson W, Papp DF. Six-fold acceleration of high-spatial resolution 3D SPACE MRI of the knee through incoherent k-space undersampling and iterative reconstruction-first experience. Invest Radiol 2016;51(6):400–409. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9. Kijowski R, Rosas H, Samsonov A, King K, Peters R, Liu F. Knee imaging: rapid three-dimensional fast spin-echo using compressed sensing. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45(6):1712–1722. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
10. Fritz J, Fritz B, Thawait GK, et al. Advanced metal artifact reduction MRI of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants: compressed sensing acceleration enables the time-neutral use of SEMAC. Skeletal Radiol 2016;45(10):1345–1356. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11. Fritz J, Ahlawat S, Demehri S, et al. Compressed sensing SEMAC: 8-fold accelerated high resolution metal artifact reduction MRI of cobalt-chromium knee arthroplasty implants. Invest Radiol 2016;51(10):666–676. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12. de Cesar Netto C, Fonseca LF, Fritz B, et al. Metal artifact reduction MRI of total ankle arthroplasty implants. Eur Radiol 2018;28(5):2216–2227. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13. Worters PW, Sung K, Stevens KJ, Koch KM, Hargreaves BA. Compressed-sensing multispectral imaging of the postoperative spine. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37(1):243–248. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14. Filli L, Jungmann PM, Zingg PO, et al. MRI with state-of-the-art metal artifact reduction after total hip arthroplasty: periprosthetic findings in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Eur Radiol 2020;30(4):2241–2252. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15. Haraikawa M, Suzuki M, Inoue K, Kozawa E, Tanaka J, Niitsu M. Simultaneous multi-slice MR imaging of the hip at 3 T to reduce acquisition times and maintain image quality. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018;19(1):440. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
16. Li X, Peng Z, Sun Y, Cui J. Is simultaneous multisection turbo spin echo ready for clinical MRI? A feasibility study on fast imaging of knee lesions. Clin Radiol 2020;75(3):238.e21–238.e30. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
17. Longo MG, Fagundes J, Huang S, et al. Simultaneous multislice-based 5-minute lumbar spine MRI protocol: initial experience in a clinical setting. J Neuroimaging 2017;27(5):442–446. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
18. Fritz J, Fritz B, Zhang J, et al. Simultaneous multislice accelerated turbo spin echo magnetic resonance imaging: comparison and combination with in-plane parallel imaging acceleration for high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. Invest Radiol 2017;52(9):529–537. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
19. Benali S, Johnston PR, Gholipour A, et al. Simultaneous multi-slice accelerated turbo spin echo of the knee in pediatric patients. Skeletal Radiol 2018;47(6):821–831. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
20. Del Grande F, Rashidi A, Luna R, et al. Five-minute five-sequence knee MRI using combined simultaneous multislice and parallel imaging acceleration: comparison with 10-minute parallel imaging knee MRI. Radiology 2021;299(3):635–646. Link, Google Scholar
21. Knoll F, Murrell T, Sriram A, et al. Advancing machine learning for MR image reconstruction with an open competition: overview of the 2019 fastMRI challenge. Magn Reson Med 2020;84(6):3054–3070. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
22. Mardani M, Gong E, Cheng JY, et al. Deep generative adversarial neural networks for compressive sensing MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2019;38(1):167–179. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
23. Herrmann J, Koerzdoerfer G, Nickel D, et al. Feasibility and implementation of a deep learning MR reconstruction for TSE sequences in musculoskeletal imaging. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021;11(8):1484. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
24. Hammernik K, Klatzer T, Kobler E, et al. Learning a variational network for reconstruction of accelerated MRI data. Magn Reson Med 2018;79(6):3055–3071. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
25. Liu F, Samsonov A, Chen L, Kijowski R, Feng L. SANTIS: Sampling-Augmented Neural neTwork with Incoherent Structure for MR image reconstruction. Magn Reson Med 2019;82(5):1890–1904. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
26. Recht MP, Zbontar J, Sodickson DK, et al. Using deep learning to accelerate knee MRI at 3 T: results of an interchangeability study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;215(6):1421–1429. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
27. Subhas N, Li H, Yang M, et al. Diagnostic interchangeability of deep convolutional neural networks reconstructed knee MR images: preliminary experience. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2020;10(9):1748–1762. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28. Van Dyck P, Smekens C, Vanhevel F, et al. Super-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the knee using 2-dimensional turbo spin echo imaging. Invest Radiol 2020;55(8):481–493. Medline, Google Scholar
29. Qiu D, Zhang S, Liu Y, Zhu J, Zheng L. Super-resolution reconstruction of knee magnetic resonance imaging based on deep learning. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2020;187:105059. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
30. Chaudhari AS, Fang Z, Kogan F, et al. Super-resolution musculoskeletal MRI using deep learning. Magn Reson Med 2018;80(5):2139–2154. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
31. Chaudhari AS, Grissom MJ, Fang Z, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative multicontrast 5-minute knee MRI using prospective artificial intelligence image quality enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216(6):1614–1625. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
32. Kim S, Jang H, Jang J, Lee YH, Hwang D. Deep-learned short tau inversion recovery imaging using multi-contrast MR images. Magn Reson Med 2020;84(6):2994–3008. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
33. Fayad LM, Parekh VS, de Castro Luna R, et al. A deep learning system for synthetic knee magnetic resonance imaging: is artificial intelligence-based fat-suppressed imaging feasible? Invest Radiol 2021;56(6):357–368. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
34. Neubert A, Bourgeat P, Wood J, et al. Simultaneous super-resolution and contrast synthesis of routine clinical magnetic resonance images of the knee for improving automatic segmentation of joint cartilage: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Med Phys 2020;47(10):4939–4948. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
35. Lee JH, Han IH, Kim DH, et al. Spine computed tomography to magnetic resonance image synthesis using generative adversarial networks : a preliminary study. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2020;63(3):386–396. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
36. Jin CB, Kim H, Liu M, et al. DC²Anet: generating lumbar spine MR images from CT scan data based on semi-supervised learning. Appl Sci 2019;9(12):2521. Crossref, Google Scholar
37. Boudabbous S, Neroladaki A, Bagetakos I, Hamard M, Delattre BM, Vargas MI. Feasibility of synthetic MRI in knee imaging in routine practice. Acta Radiol Open 2018;7(5):2058460118769686. Crossref, Google Scholar
38. Kumar NM, Fritz B, Stern SE, Warntjes JBM, Lisa Chuah YM, Fritz J. Synthetic MRI of the knee: phantom validation and comparison with conventional MRI. Radiology 2018;289(2):465–477. Link, Google Scholar
39. Roux M, Hilbert T, Hussami M, Becce F, Kober T, Omoumi P. MRI T2 mapping of the knee providing synthetic morphologic images: comparison to conventional turbo spin-echo MRI. Radiology 2019;293(3):620–630. Link, Google Scholar
40. Lee SH, Lee YH, Song HT, Suh JS. Quantitative T₂ mapping of knee cartilage: comparison between the synthetic MR imaging and the CPMG sequence. Magn Reson Med Sci 2018;17(4):344–349. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
41. Kijowski R, Blankenbaker DG, Munoz Del Rio A, Baer GS, Graf BK. Evaluation of the articular cartilage of the knee joint: value of adding a T2 mapping sequence to a routine MR imaging protocol. Radiology 2013;267(2):503–513. Link, Google Scholar
42. Joseph GB, Baum T, Alizai H, et al. Baseline mean and heterogeneity of MR cartilage T2 are associated with morphologic degeneration of cartilage, meniscus, and bone marrow over 3 years—data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012;20(7):727–735. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
43. Yi J, Lee YH, Song HT, Suh JS. Double-inversion recovery with synthetic magnetic resonance: a pilot study for assessing synovitis of the knee joint compared to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2019;29(5):2573–2580. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
44. Vargas MI, Drake-Pérez M, Delattre BMA, Boto J, Lovblad KO, Boudabous S. Feasibility of a synthetic MR imaging sequence for spine imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39(9):1756–1763. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
45. Lee SH, Lee YH, Hahn S, Yang J, Song HT, Suh JS. Optimization of T2-weighted imaging for shoulder magnetic resonance arthrography by synthetic magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol 2018;59(8):959–965. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
46. Stahl R, Krug R, Kelley DA, et al. Assessment of cartilage-dedicated sequences at ultra-high-field MRI: comparison of imaging performance and diagnostic confidence between 3.0 and 7.0 T with respect to osteoarthritis-induced changes at the knee joint. Skeletal Radiol 2009;38(8):771–783. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
47. Friebe B, Richter M, Penzlin S, et al. Assessment of low-grade meniscal and cartilage damage of the knee at 7 T: a comparison to 3 T imaging with arthroscopic correlation. Invest Radiol 2018;53(7):390–396. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
48. Springer E, Bohndorf K, Juras V, et al. Comparison of routine knee magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T and 7 T. Invest Radiol 2017;52(1):42–54. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
49. Theysohn JM, Kraff O, Orzada S, et al. Bilateral hip imaging at 7 tesla using a multi-channel transmit technology: initial results presenting anatomical detail in healthy volunteers and pathological changes in patients with avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42(11):1555–1563. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
50. Lazik-Palm A, Kraff O, Rietsch SHG, et al. 7-T clinical MRI of the shoulder in patients with suspected lesions of the rotator cuff. Eur Radiol Exp 2020;4(1):10. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
51. Theysohn JM, Kraff O, Maderwald S, et al. MRI of the ankle joint in healthy non-athletes and in marathon runners: image quality issues at 7.0 T compared to 1.5 T. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42(2):261–267. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
52. Götestrand S, Björkman A, Björkman-Burtscher IM, et al. Visualization of wrist anatomy—a comparison between 7T and 3T MRI. Eur Radiol 2022;32(2):1362–1370. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
53. Germann C, Galley J, Falkowski AL, et al. Ultra-high resolution 3D MRI for chondrocalcinosis detection in the knee—a prospective diagnostic accuracy study comparing 7-tesla and 3-tesla MRI with CT. Eur Radiol 2021;31(12):9436–9445. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
54. Juras V, Schreiner M, Laurent D, et al. The comparison of the performance of 3 T and 7 T T₂ mapping for untreated low-grade cartilage lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 2019;55:86–92. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
55. Singh A, Haris M, Cai K, Kogan F, Hariharan H, Reddy R. High resolution T1ρ mapping of in vivo human knee cartilage at 7T. PLoS One 2014;9(5):e97486. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
56. Welsch GH, Mamisch TC, Hughes T, et al. In vivo biochemical 7.0 tesla magnetic resonance: preliminary results of dGEMRIC, zonal T2, and T2* mapping of articular cartilage. Invest Radiol 2008;43(9):619–626. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
57. Zbýň Š, Schreiner M, Juras V, et al. Assessment of low-grade focal cartilage lesions in the knee with sodium MRI at 7 T: reproducibility and short-term, 6-month follow-up data. Invest Radiol 2020;55(7):430–437. Medline, Google Scholar
58. Krishnamoorthy G, Nanga RPR, Bagga P, Hariharan H, Reddy R. High quality three-dimensional gagCEST imaging of in vivo human knee cartilage at 7 tesla. Magn Reson Med 2017;77(5):1866–1873. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
59. Fagan AJ, Welker KM, Amrami KK, et al. Image artifact management for clinical magnetic resonance imaging on a 7 T scanner using single-channel radiofrequency transmit mode. Invest Radiol 2019;54(12):781–791. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
60. Hori M, Hagiwara A, Goto M, Wada A, Aoki S. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging: its history and renaissance. Invest Radiol 2021;56(11):669–679. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
61. Bürk J, Vicari M, Dovi-Akué P, et al. Extremity-dedicated low-field MRI shows good diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement for the diagnosis of the acutely injured knee. Clin Imaging 2015;39(5):871–875. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
62. Lee CS, Davis SM, McGroder C, et al. Analysis of low-field MRI scanners for evaluation of shoulder pathology based on arthroscopy. Orthop J Sports Med 2014;2(7):2325967114540407. Crossref, Google Scholar
63. Verhoek G, Zanetti M, Duewell S, Zollinger H, Hodler J. MRI of the foot and ankle: diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of a dedicated low field MR scanner. J Magn Reson Imaging 1998;8(3):711–716. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
64. Lee RK, Griffith JF, Lau YY, et al. Diagnostic capability of low- versus high-field magnetic resonance imaging for lumbar degenerative disease. Spine 2015;40(6):382–391. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
65. Lee RK, Griffith JF, Wang DF, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging of the wrist in rheumatoid arthritis: dedicated low-field (0.25-T) versus high-field (3.0-T) MRI. Skeletal Radiol 2015;44(8):1095–1101. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
66. Khodarahmi I, Brinkmann IM, Lin DJ, et al. New-generation low-field magnetic resonance imaging of hip arthroplasty implants using slice encoding for metal artifact correction: first in vitro experience at 0.55 T and comparison with 1.5 T. Invest Radiol 2022;57(8):517–526. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
67. Wang X, Greer JS, Dimitrov IE, Pezeshk P, Chhabra A, Madhuranthakam AJ. Frequency offset corrected inversion pulse for B₀ and B₁ insensitive fat suppression at 3T: application to MR neurography of brachial plexus. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48(4):1104–1111. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
68. Wang X, Harrison C, Mariappan YK, et al. MR neurography of brachial plexus at 3.0 T with robust fat and blood suppression. Radiology 2017;283(2):538–546. Link, Google Scholar
69. Chhabra A, Subhawong TK, Bizzell C, Flammang A, Soldatos T. 3T MR neurography using three-dimensional diffusion-weighted PSIF: technical issues and advantages. Skeletal Radiol 2011;40(10):1355–1360. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
70. Sneag DB, Daniels SP, Geannette C, et al. Post-contrast 3D inversion recovery magnetic resonance neurography for evaluation of branch nerves of the brachial plexus. Eur J Radiol 2020;132:109304. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
71. Queler SC, Tan ET, Geannette C, Prince M, Sneag DB. Ferumoxytol-enhanced vascular suppression in magnetic resonance neurography. Skeletal Radiol 2021;50(11):2255–2266. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
72. Cervantes B, Kirschke JS, Klupp E, et al. Orthogonally combined motion- and diffusion-sensitized driven equilibrium (OC-MDSDE) preparation for vessel signal suppression in 3D turbo spin echo imaging of peripheral nerves in the extremities. Magn Reson Med 2018;79(1):407–415. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
73. Rowe SP, Fritz J, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of musculoskeletal trauma: initial experience with cinematic rendering. Emerg Radiol 2018;25(1):93–101. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
74. McCollough CH, Boedeker K, Cody D, et al. Principles and applications of multienergy CT: report of AAPM Task Group 291. Med Phys 2020;47(7):e881–e912.[Published correction appears in Med Phys 2021;48(5):2694.] Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
75. Choi HK, Burns LC, Shojania K, et al. Dual energy CT in gout: a prospective validation study. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71(9):1466–1471. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
76. Reddy T, McLaughlin PD, Mallinson PI, et al. Detection of occult, undisplaced hip fractures with a dual-energy CT algorithm targeted to detection of bone marrow edema. Emerg Radiol 2015;22(1):25–29. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
77. Bruder H, Raupach R, Sunnegardh J, et al. Novel iterative reconstruction method with optimal dose usage for partially redundant CT-acquisition. Phys Med Biol 2015;60(21):8567–8582. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
78. Su T, Sun X, Yang J, et al. DIRECT-Net: a unified mutual-domain material decomposition network for quantitative dual-energy CT imaging. Med Phys 2022;49(2):917–934. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
79. Kim YJ, Cha JG, Kim H, Yi JS, Kim HJ. Dual-energy and iterative metal artifact reduction for reducing artifacts due to metallic hardware: a loosening hip phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;212(5):1106–1111. Crossref, Google Scholar
80. Schömig F, Pumberger M, Palmowski Y, Ditges AK, Diekhoff T, Göhler F. Vertebral disk morphology of the lumbar spine: a retrospective analysis of collagen-sensitive mapping using dual-energy computed tomography. Skeletal Radiol 2021;50(7):1359–1367. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
81. Mallinson PI, Stevens C, Reisinger C, Nicolaou S, Munk PL, Ouellette H. Achilles tendinopathy and partial tear diagnosis using dual-energy computed tomography collagen material decomposition application. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013;37(3):475–477. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
82. Willemink MJ, Persson M, Pourmorteza A, Pelc NJ, Fleischmann D. Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology 2018;289(2):293–312. Link, Google Scholar
83. Rajendran K, Petersilka M, Henning A, et al. First clinical photon-counting detector CT system: technical evaluation. Radiology 2022;303(1):130–138. Link, Google Scholar
84. Zhou W, Lane JI, Carlson ML, et al. Comparison of a photon-counting-detector CT with an energy-integrating-detector CT for temporal bone imaging: a cadaveric study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39(9):1733–1738. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
85. Bette SJ, Braun FM, Haerting M, et al. Visualization of bone details in a novel photon-counting dual-source CT scanner-comparison with energy-integrating CT. Eur Radiol 2022;32(5):2930–2936. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
86. Zhou W, Bartlett DJ, Diehn FE, et al. Reduction of metal artifacts and improvement in dose efficiency using photon-counting detector computed tomography and tin filtration. Invest Radiol 2019;54(4):204–211. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
87. Do TD, Sawall S, Heinze S, et al. A semi-automated quantitative comparison of metal artifact reduction in photon-counting computed tomography by energy-selective thresholding. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):21099. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
88. Breighner RE, Endo Y, Konin GP, Gulotta LV, Koff MF, Potter HG. Technical developments: zero echo time imaging of the shoulder: enhanced osseous detail by using MR imaging. Radiology 2018;286(3):960–966. Link, Google Scholar
89. Finkenstaedt T, Siriwanarangsun P, Achar S, et al. Ultrashort time-to-echo magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T for the detection of spondylolysis in cadaveric spines: comparison with CT. Invest Radiol 2019;54(1):32–38. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
90. Breighner RE, Bogner EA, Lee SC, Koff MF, Potter HG. Evaluation of osseous morphology of the hip using zero echo time magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med 2019;47(14):3460–3468. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
91. Argentieri EC, Koff MF, Breighner RE, Endo Y, Shah PH, Sneag DB. Diagnostic accuracy of zero-echo time MRI for the evaluation of cervical neural foraminal stenosis. Spine 2018;43(13):928–933. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
92. Gersing AS, Pfeiffer D, Kopp FK, et al. Evaluation of MR-derived CT-like images and simulated radiographs compared to conventional radiography in patients with benign and malignant bone tumors. Eur Radiol 2019;29(1):13–21. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
93. Eley KA, McIntyre AG, Watt-Smith SR, Golding SJ. “Black bone” MRI: a partial flip angle technique for radiation reduction in craniofacial imaging. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1011):272–278. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
94. Stillwater L, Koenig J, Maycher B, Davidson M. 3D-MR vs. 3D-CT of the shoulder in patients with glenohumeral instability. Skeletal Radiol 2017;46(3):325–331. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
95. Ang EC, Robertson AF, Malara FA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 3-T magnetic resonance imaging with 3D T1 VIBE versus computer tomography in pars stress fracture of the lumbar spine. Skeletal Radiol 2016;45(11):1533–1540. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
96. Gyftopoulos S, Yemin A, Mulholland T, et al. 3DMR osseous reconstructions of the shoulder using a gradient-echo based two-point Dixon reconstruction: a feasibility study. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42(3):347–352. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
97. Samim M, Eftekhary N, Vigdorchik JM, et al. 3D-MRI versus 3D-CT in the evaluation of osseous anatomy in femoroacetabular impingement using Dixon 3D FLASH sequence. Skeletal Radiol 2019;48(3):429–436. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
98. Florkow MC, Zijlstra F, Willemsen K, et al. Deep learning-based MR-to-CT synthesis: the influence of varying gradient echo-based MR images as input channels. Magn Reson Med 2020;83(4):1429–1441. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
99. Jans LBO, Chen M, Elewaut D, et al. MRI-based synthetic CT in the detection of structural lesions in patients with suspected sacroiliitis: comparison with MRI. Radiology 2021;298(2):343–349. Link, Google Scholar
100. Staartjes VE, Seevinck PR, Vandertop WP, van Stralen M, Schroder ML. Magnetic resonance imaging-based synthetic computed tomography of the lumbar spine for surgical planning: a clinical proof-of-concept. Neurosurg Focus 2021;50(1):E13. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

Article History

Received: Mar 23 2022
Revision requested: May 2 2022
Revision received: July 7 2022
Accepted: Aug 1 2022
Published online: Nov 22 2022
Published in print: Jan 2023

Read the full article here

Emerging Technology in Musculoskeletal MRI and CT

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent News

Topics

Get Informed

Welcome Back!

Create New Account!

Retrieve your password