Background
Clinical knee MRI protocols require upwards of 15 minutes of scan time.
Purpose/Hypothesis
To compare the imaging appearance of knee abnormalities depicted with a 5‐minute 3D double‐echo in steady‐state (DESS) sequence with separate echo images, with that of a routine clinical knee MRI protocol. A secondary goal was to compare the imaging appearance of knee abnormalities depicted with 5‐minute DESS paired with a 2‐minute coronal proton‐density fat‐saturated (PDFS) sequence.
Study Type
Prospective.
Subjects
Thirty‐six consecutive patients (19 male) referred for a routine knee MRI.
Field Strength/Sequences
DESS and PDFS at 3T.
Assessment
Five musculoskeletal radiologists evaluated all images for the presence of internal knee derangement using DESS, DESS+PDFS, and the conventional imaging protocol, and their associated diagnostic confidence of the reading.
Statistical Tests
Differences in positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for DESS and DESS+PDFS compared with the conventional protocol were calculated and tested using exact McNemar tests. The percentage of observations where DESS or DESS+PDFS had equivalent confidence ratings to DESS+Conv were tested with exact symmetry tests. Interreader agreement was calculated using Krippendorff's alpha.
Results
DESS had a PPA of 90% (88–92% CI) and NPA of 99% (99–99% CI). DESS+PDFS had increased PPA of 99% (95–99% CI) and NPA of 100% (99–100% CI) compared with DESS (both P < 0.001). DESS had equivalent diagnostic confidence to DESS+Conv in 94% of findings, whereas DESS+PDFS had equivalent diagnostic confidence in 99% of findings (both P < 0.001). All readers had moderate concordance for all three protocols (Krippendorff's alpha 47–48%).
Data Conclusion
Both 1) 5‐minute 3D‐DESS with separated echoes and 2) 5‐minute 3D‐DESS paired with a 2‐minute coronal PDFS sequence depicted knee abnormalities similarly to a routine clinical knee MRI protocol, which may be a promising technique for abbreviated knee MRI.
Level of Evidence: 2
Technical Efficacy: Stage 2
J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.