Reducing susceptibility artefacts in magnetic resonance images of the canine stifle following surgery for cranial cruciate ligament deficiency

F. H. David; J. Grierson; C. R. Lamb

doi:10.3415/VCOT-12-03-0031

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Table of Contents

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25(06): 488-497
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-12-03-0031

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

Reducing susceptibility artefacts in magnetic resonance images of the canine stifle following surgery for cranial cruciate ligament deficiency

F. H. David

¹Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, UK

²Current address: Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, USA

,

J. Grierson

¹Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, UK

³Current address: Anderson Sturgess Veterinary Specialists, The Granary, Bunstead Barns, Hursley, Winchester, Hampshire, UK

,

C. R. Lamb

¹Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, UK

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Summary

Background: Magnetic resonance (MR) images of the postoperative canine stifle are adversely affected by susceptibility artefacts associated with metallic implants.

Objectives: To determine empirically to what extent susceptibility artefacts could be reduced by modifications to MR technique.

Methods: Three cadaveric limbs with a tibial plateau levelling osteotomy (TPLO), tibial tuberosity advancement (TTA), or extra-capsular stabilization (ECS) implant, respectively, were imaged at 1.5T. Series of proton density and T2-weighted images were acquired with different combinations of frequency-encoding gradient (FEG) direction and polarity, stifle flexion or extension, echo spacing (ES), and readout bandwidth (ROBW), and ranked. The highest rank (a rank of 1) corresponded to the smallest artefact.

Results: Image ranking was affected by FEG polarity (p = 0.005), stifle flexion (p = 0.01), and ROBW (p = 0.0001). For TPLO and TTA implants, the highest ranked images were obtained with the stifle flexed, lateromedial FEG, and medial polarity for dorsal images, and craniocaudal FEG and caudal polarity for sagittal images. For the ECS implant, the highest ranked images were obtained with the stifle extended, a proximodistal FEG and proximal polarity for dorsal images, and craniocaudal FEG and cranial polarity for sagittal images.

Clinical significance: Susceptibility artefacts in MR images of postoperative canine stifles do not preclude clinical evaluation of joints with ECS or TTA implants.

Part of this study was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American College of Veterinary Radiology, Albuquerque, NM, October 2011.

Keywords

Cruciate ligament - dog - Magnetic Resonance - stifle - susceptibility artefacts

Full Text

References

References
1 Widmer WR, Buckwalter KA, Braunstein EM. et al. Radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging of the stifle joint in experimental osteoarthritis of dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1994; 35: 371-384.
2 Barrett E, Barr F, Owen M. et al. A retrospective study of the MRI findings in 18 dogs with stifle injuries. J Small Anim Pract 2009; 50: 448-455.
3 Blond L, Thrall DE, Roe SC. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for meniscal tears in dogs affected with naturally occurring cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49: 425-431.
4 Banfield CM, Morrison WB. Magnetic resonance arthrography of the canine stifle joint: technique and applications in eleven military dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2000; 41: 200-213.
5 Winegardner KR, Scrivani PV, Krotscheck U. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of subarticular bone marrow lesions in dogs with stifle lameness. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2007; 48: 312-317.
6 Harper TAM, Jones JC, Saunders GK. et al. Sensitivity of low-field T2* images for detecting the presence and severity of histopathologic meniscal lesions in dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2011; 52: 428-435.
7 Böttcher P, Brühschwein A, Winkels P. et al. Value of low-field magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing meniscal tears in the canine stifle: a prospective study evaluating sensitivity and specificity in naturally occurring cranial cruciate ligament deficiency with arthroscopy as the gold standard. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 296-305.
8 Marino DJ, Loughin CA. Diagnostic Imaging of the Canine Stifle: A Review. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 284-295.
9 Vasseur PB. Stifle joint. In: Slatter D. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Vol 2 Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Science; 2003. pg. 2090-2133.
10 Lafaver S, Miller NA, Preston Stubbs W. et al. Tibial tuberosity advancement for stabilization of the canine cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifle joint: surgical technique, early results, and complications in 101 dogs. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 573-586.
11 Thieman KM, Tomlinson JL, Fox DB. et al. Effect of meniscal release on rate of subsequent meniscal tears and owner-assessed outcome in dogs with cruciate disease treated with tibial plateau leveling osteotomy. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 705-710.
12 Metelman LA, Schwarz PD, Salman M. et al. An evaluation of 3 different cranial cruciate ligament surgical stabilization procedures as they relate to postoperative meniscal injuries - a retrospective study of 665 stifles. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995; 8: 118-123.
13 Freer SR, Scrivani PV. Postoperative susceptibility artifact during magnetic resonance imaging of the vertebral column in two dogs and a cat. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49: 30-34.
14 De Decker S, Caemaert J, Tshamala MC. et al. Surgical treatment of disk-associated wobbler syndrome by a distractable vertebral titanium cage in seven dogs. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 544-554.
15 Hecht S, Adams WH, Narak J. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifacts due to metallic foreign bodies. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2011; 52: 409-414.
16 Sutherland-Smith J, Tilley B. Magnetic resonance imaging metallic artifact of commonly encountered surgical implants and foreign material. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012; 53: 312-317.
17 David FH, Grierson J, Lamb CR. Effects of surgical implants on high-field magnetic resonance images of the normal canine stifle. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012; 53: 280-288.
18 Lee MJ, Kim S, Lee SA. et al. Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics 2007; 27: 791-803.
19 Vandevenne JE, Vanhoenacker FM, Parizel PM. et al. Reduction of metal artefacts in musculoskeletal MR imaging. JBR-BTR 2007; 90: 345-349.
20 Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Butts K. et al. Metal-Induced Artifacts in MRI. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 547-555.
21 Koch KM, Hargreaves BA, Butts K. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging near metal implants. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 32: 773-787.
22 Butts K, Pauly JM, Gold GE. Reduction of blurring in view angle tilting MRI. Magn Reson Med 2005; 53: 418-424.
23 Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ. et al. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics 2000; 20: 699-712.
24 Rahmer J, Börnert P, Dries SPM. Assessment of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3D ultrashort echo-time MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 29: 443-448.
25 Suh JS, Jeong EK, Shin KH. et al. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 1207-1213.
26 Guermazi A, Miaux Y, Zaim S. et al. Metallic Artefacts in MR Imaging: Effects of Main Field Orientation and Strength. Clinical Radiology 2003; 58: 322-328.
27 Ganapathi M, Joseph G, Savage R. et al. MRI susceptibility artefacts related to scaphoid screws: the effect of screw type, screw orientation and imaging parameters. Journal of Hand Surgery (British and European Volume) 2002; 27: 165-170.
28 White LM, Kim JK, Mehta M. et al. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology 2000; 215: 254-262.
29 Eustace SJ, Jara H, Goldberg R. et al. A comparison of conventional spin-echo and turbo spin-echo imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopedic hardware. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 455-458.
30 Kolind SH, MacKay AL, Munk PL. et al. Quantitative evaluation of metal artifact reduction techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20: 487-495.
31 Viano AM, Gronemeyer SA, Haliloglu M. et al. Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 18: 287-295.
32 Farrelly C, Davarpanah A, Brennan S. et al. Imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopedic hardware: comparison of 3-T and 1.5-T MRI. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: W60-W64.
33 Petersilge CA, Lewin JS, Duerk JL. et al. Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws. Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 1213-1218.
34 Baird DK, Hathcock JT, Rumph PF. et al. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging of the canine stifle joint: normal anatomy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1998; 39: 87-97.
35 Pujol E, Van Bree H, Cauzinille L. et al. Anatomic study of the canine stifle using low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI Arthrography. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 395-401.
36 Lufkin RB. The MRI Manual. St Louis: Mosby; 1998. pg. 41-99.
37 Runge VM, Nitz WR, Schmeets SH. The physics of clinical MR taught through images. New York: Thieme; 2009: 17-26.
38 Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM. et al. The essential physics of medical imaging. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2002. pg. 415-467.
39 Augustiny N, von Schulthess GK, Meier D. et al. MR imaging of large nonferromagnetic metallic implants at 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1987; 11: 678-683.
40 Kowaleski MP, Boudrieau RJ, Pozzi A. Stifle joint. In: Tobias KM, Johnston SA. editors. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal, Vol 1. St Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. pg. 906-998.