Do dynamic‐based MR knee kinematics methods produce the same results as static methods?

Abstract

MR-based methods provide low risk, noninvasive assessment of joint kinematics; however, these methods often use static positions or require many identical cycles of movement. The study objective was to compare the 3D kinematic results approximated from a series of sequential static poses of the knee with the 3D kinematic results obtained from continuous dynamic movement of the knee. To accomplish this objective, we compared kinematic data from a validated static MR method to a fast static MR method, and compared kinematic data from both static methods to a newly developed dynamic MR method. Ten normal volunteers were imaged using the three kinematic methods (dynamic, static standard, and static fast). Results showed that the two sets of static results were in agreement, indicating that the sequences (standard and fast) may be used interchangeably. Dynamic kinematic results were significantly different from both static results in eight of 11 kinematic parameters: patellar flexion, patellar tilt, patellar proximal translation, patellar lateral translation, patellar anterior translation, tibial abduction, tibial internal rotation, and tibial anterior translation. Three-dimensional MR kinematics measured from dynamic knee motion are often different from those measured in a static knee at several positions, indicating that dynamic-based kinematics provides information that is not obtainable from static scans.

Clinical Utility of Continuous Radial Magnetic Resonance Imaging Acquisition at 3 T in Real-time Patellofemoral Kinematic Assessment: A Feasibility Study

“…Although computed tomography (CT) has considerable utility for assessing patellofemoral kinematics, 27-32 the lack of ionization radiation makes magnetic resonance an attractive modality. 3-6,33 …”

Accuracy of model-based tracking of knee kinematics and cartilage contact measured by dynamic volumetric MRI

“…Sequential static imaging provides similar accuracies for patellar kinematics (1.02°/0.88 mm [34]). However, static imaging cannot capture the dynamic muscle and inertial effects that arise in active motion and affect joint mechanics [15]. Multi-slice dynamic imaging has been proposed to supplant sequential static imaging [15].…”

“…However, static imaging cannot capture the dynamic muscle and inertial effects that arise in active motion and affect joint mechanics [15]. Multi-slice dynamic imaging has been proposed to supplant sequential static imaging [15]. However, real-time implementations of multi-slice imaging are currently only viable for slow, quasi-static motion (20 s/cycle).…”

“…Unfortunately, the relatively slow acquisition rate of MRI makes real-time 3D imaging of dynamic joint motion infeasible [15, 16]. Alternatively, cine imaging sequences are often used to accumulate images over repeat motion cycles [12, 17–19].…”

Automated Image Analysis of High-field and Dynamic Musculoskeletal MRI

“…They demonstrated the importance of normal knee kinematics and highlighted the value of kinematic MR imaging in clinical assessment of the knee post-surgery or in modelling the impact of altered knee kinematics on contact mechanisms. Several research studies have however demonstrated that considerable differences exist between passive and active knee motion as a result of the missing active muscle forces applied to the joint structures [Shellock 1992, Shellock 1993, Brossmann 1993, Smith 2003, d'Entremont 2013. …”