Skip to main content
Log in

Hochfeld- und Ultrahochfeldmagnetresonanztomographie

Neue Möglichkeiten für die Bildgebung der Gelenke

High-field and ultrahigh-field magnetic resonance imaging: new possibilities for imaging joints

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Ganzkörper-Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) mit 3 Tesla kommt zunehmend in den klinischen Routinebetrieb. Der wesentliche Vorteil der Hochfeld-MRT ist das höhere Signal-zu-Rausch-Verhältnis, das im Muskel-Skelett-System vor allem in einer höheren Auflösung bei gleicher Untersuchungszeit vorteilhaft genutzt werden kann. So profitieren die Darstellung kleiner Gelenke, die Labrumdarstellung in Schulter und Hüfte und die Knorpelbildgebung von der Hochauflösung.

In der Knorpelbildgebung sind neben verbesserter morphologischer Darstellung auch fortgeschrittene quantitative Techniken wie T1- und T2-Mapping, Diffusions- und Natriumbildgebung aufgrund der höheren Sensitivität auf 3 Tesla klinisch einsetzbar.

Die bessere spektrale Auflösung auf 3 Tesla lässt auch Fortschritte in der metabolischen Bildgebung von Tumoren des Skeletts und der Weichteile erwarten.

Abstract

Whole-body MR tomography at 3 T is moving steadily from research into routine clinical practice. The most important advantage of high-field MRI is the higher signal to noise ratio, which allows acquisitions in the musculo-skeletal system with higher resolution within the same scan time. The imaging of small joints, the visualization of labral anatomy and pathology in the shoulder and hip joints, as well as cartilage imaging will benefit from higher resolution protocols. In addition to improved morphological imaging of articular cartilage, the higher sensitivity of 3 T allows the clinical use of advanced MR techniques of cartilage such as T1 and T2 mapping, diffusion and sodium imaging.

The improved spectral resolution with the higher field may improve metabolic imaging of tumors of the skeleton and soft tissues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Baur A, Reiser MF (2000) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the musculoskeletal system in humans. Skeletal Radiol 29: 555–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Czerny C, Kramer J, Neuhold A et al. (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography of the acetabular labrum: comparison with surgical findings. Rofo 173: 702–707

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fayad LM, Bluemke DA, McCarthy EF et al. (2006) Musculoskeletal tumors: use of proton MR spectroscopic imaging for characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging 23: 23–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M et al. (2003) Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417: 112–120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Glaser C (2005) New techniques for cartilage imaging: T2 relaxation time and diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 43: 641–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gold GE, Hargreaves BA, Stevens KJ, Beaulieu C (2006) Advanced magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage. Orthop Clin North Am 37: 331–334

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Keeney JA, Peelle MW, Jackson J et al. (2004) Magnetic resonance arthrography versus arthroscopy in the evaluation of articular hip pathology. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429: 163–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim YJ, Jaramillo D, Millis MB et al. (2003) Assessment of early osteoarthritis in hip dysplasia with delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85: 1987–1992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kornaat PR, Reeder SB, Koo S et al. (2005) MR imaging of articular cartilage at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of SPGR and SSFP sequences. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 13: 338–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ludescher B, Martirosian P, Lenk S et al. (2005) High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of trabecular bone in the wrist at 3 tesla: initial results. Acta Radiol 46: 306–309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mamisch TC, Cavallaro A, Horger W et al. (2005 a) Korrelation von makroskopischen Befunden und Histologie zu Diffusionsbildgebung im Hueftkopf. Rofo 177: 164

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mamisch TC, Cavallaro A, Horger W et al. (2005 b) 3 T MR cartilage imaging of the hip: cartilage pattern, lesions, biomechanical analysis and comparison to 1.3 T. Eur Radiol 15: 212

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mosher TJ (2006) Musculoskeletal imaging at 3T : current techniques and future application. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 14: 63–76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Niitsu M, Ikeda K (2003) Routine MR examination of the knee using parallel imaging. Clin Radiol 58: 801–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Niitsu M, Nakai T, Ikeda K et al. (2000) High-resolution MR imaging of the knee at 3 T. Acta Radiol 41: 84–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nissi MJ, Toyras J, Laasanen MS et al. (2004) Proteoglycan and collagen sensitive MRI evaluation of normal and degenerated articular cartilage. J Orthop Res 22: 557–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ramnath RR (2006 a) 3T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system (part I): considerations, coils, and challenges. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 14: 27–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramnath R (2006 b) 3T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system (part II): clinical applications. Magn Reson Imag Clin N Am 14: 41–62

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rodegerdts EA, Boss A, Riemarzik K et al. (2006) 3D Imaging of the whole spine at 3 Tesla compared to 1.5 Tesla: initial experiences. Acta Radiol 47: 488–493

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmid MR, Notzli HP, Zanetti M et al. (2003) Cartilage lesions in the hip: diagnostic effectiveness of MR arthrography. Radiology 226: 382–386

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sundberg TP, Toomayan GA, Major NM (2006) Evaluation of the acetabular labrum at 3.0 T MRI compared with 1.5T arthrography: preliminary results. Radiology 239: 706–711

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wheaton AJ, Borthakur A, Shapiro EM et al. (2004) Proteoglycan loss in human knee cartilage: quantitation with sodium MR imaging--feasibility study. Radiology 231: 900–905

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt. Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Trattnig.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trattnig, S., Mamisch, T.C. & Noebauer, I. Hochfeld- und Ultrahochfeldmagnetresonanztomographie. Z. Rheumatol. 65, 681–687 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00393-006-0121-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00393-006-0121-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation