European Journal of Radiology
Volume 63, Issue 1 , Pages 110-119, July 2007

Contrast enhanced cartilage imaging: Comparison of ionic and non-ionic contrast agents

  • Edzard Wiener

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, D-81675 Munich, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +49 89 4140 2979; fax: +49 89 4140 483.
  • ,
  • Klaus Woertler

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, D-81675 Munich, Germany
  • ,
  • Gregor Weirich

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Pathology, Technical University Munich, Troger Str. 18, D-81675 Munich, Germany
  • ,
  • Ernst J. Rummeny

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, D-81675 Munich, Germany
  • ,
  • Marcus Settles

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, D-81675 Munich, Germany

Received 9 October 2006; received in revised form 14 January 2007; accepted 18 January 2007.

Abstract 

Our objective was to compare relaxation effects, dynamics and spatial distributions of ionic and non-ionic contrast agents in articular cartilage at concentrations typically used for direct MR arthrography at 1.5T.

Dynamic MR-studies over 11h were performed in 15 bovine patella specimens. For each of the contrast agents gadopentetate dimeglumine, gadobenate dimeglumine, gadoteridol and mangafodipir trinatrium three patellae were placed in 2.5mmol/L contrast solution. Simultaneous measurements of T1 and T2 were performed every 30min using a high-spatial-resolution “MIX”-sequence. T1, T2 and ΔR1, ΔR2 profile plots across cartilage thickness were calculated to demonstrate the spatial and temporal distributions. The charge is one of the main factors which controls the amount of the contrast media diffusing into intact cartilage, but independent of the charge, the spatial distribution across cartilage thickness remains highly inhomogeneous even after 11h of diffusion. The absolute ΔR2-effect in cartilage is at least as large as the ΔR1-effect for all contrast agents. Maximum changes were 5–12s−1 for ΔR1 and 8–15s−1 for ΔR2. This study indicates that for morphologically intact cartilage only the amount of contrast agents within cartilage is determined by the charge but not the spatial distribution across cartilage thickness. In addition, ΔR2 can be considered for quantification of contrast agent concentrations, since it is of the same magnitude and less time consuming to measure than ΔR1.

Keywords: MRI, Arthrography, Contrast agent, Cartilage, Relaxation rates

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0720-048X(07)00033-2

doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.01.019

European Journal of Radiology
Volume 63, Issue 1 , Pages 110-119, July 2007