Both 3-T dGEMRIC and Acetabular-Femoral T2 Difference May Detect Cartilage Damage at the Chondrolabral Junction

Abstract

Background: In addition to case reports of gadolinium-related toxicities, there are increasing theoretical concerns about the use of gadolinium for MR imaging. As a result, there is increasing interest in noncontrast imaging techniques for biochemical cartilage assessment. Among them, T2 mapping holds promise because of its simplicity, but its biophysical interpretation has been controversial. Questions/purposes: We sought to determine whether (1) 3-T delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and T2 mapping are both capable of detecting cartilage damage at the chondrolabral junction in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI); and (2) whether there is a correlation between these two techniques for acetabular and femoral head cartilage assessment. Methods: Thirty-one patients with hip-related symptoms resulting from FAI underwent a preoperative 3-T MRI of their hip that included dGEMRIC and T2 mapping (symptomatic group, 16 women, 15 men; mean age, 27 ± 8 years). Ten volunteers with no symptoms according to the WOMAC served as a control (asymptomatic group, seven women, three men; mean age, 28 ± 3 years). After morphologic cartilage assessment, acetabular and femoral head cartilages were graded according to the modified Outerbridge grading criteria. In the midsagittal plane, single-observer analyses of precontrast T1 values (volunteers), the dGEMRIC index (T1 Gd , patients), and T2 mapping values (everyone) were compared in acetabular and corresponding femoral head cartilage at the chondrolabral junction of each hip by region-of-interest analysis. Results: In the symptomatic group, T1 Gd and T2 values were lower in the acetabular cartilage compared with corresponding femoral head cartilage (T1 Gd : 515 ± 165 ms versus 650 ± 191 ms, p < 0.001; T2: 39 ± 8 ms versus 46 ± 10 ms, p < 0.001). In contrast, the asymptomatic group demonstrated no differences in T1 and T2 values for the acetabular and femoral cartilages with the numbers available (T1: 861 ± 130 ms versus 860 ± 182 ms, p = 0.98; T2: 43 ± 7 ms versus 42 ± 6 ms, p = 0.73). No correlation with the numbers available was noted between the modified Outerbridge grade and T1, T1 Gd , or T2 as well as between T2 and either T1 or T1 Gd . Conclusions: Without the need for contrast media application, T2 mapping may be a viable alternative to dGEMRIC when assessing hip cartilage at the chondrolabral junction. However, acquisition-related phenomena as well as regional variations in the microstructure of hip cartilage necessitate an internal femoral head cartilage control when interpreting these results. Level of Evidence: Level IV, diagnostic study.