Search Filters

  • Media Source
  • Presentation Format
  • Media Type
  • Media Year
  • Language
  • Diagnosis / Condition
  • Diagnosis Method
  • Patient Populations
  • Treatment / Technique

Change in Cartilage Volume after Meniscal Allograft Transplantation: A One-Year MRI Study Based on Semi-Automated Graph-Cut Algorithm Method

Change in Cartilage Volume after Meniscal Allograft Transplantation: A One-Year MRI Study Based on Semi-Automated Graph-Cut Algorithm Method

Tae-Hyuk Kim, MD, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Seong-Il Bin, MD, PhD, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Jong-Min Kim, MD, PhD, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Bum-Sik Lee, MD, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Jun-Gu Park, MD, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Sung-Mok Oh, MD, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF


2019 Congress   Paper Abstract   2019 Congress   Not yet rated

 

Anatomic Location

Anatomic Structure

Diagnosis / Condition

Diagnosis Method

MRI

Treatment / Technique


Summary: After MAT, cartilage volume displayed immediate postoperative decrease and gradual recovery approximately equal to preoperative value


Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been accepted as an effective treatment to the patients with meniscal deficiency. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the chondroprotective effect of MAT. Advances in MR imaging enabled us to obtain quantitative metrics of cartilage morphology.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the one-year change of cartilage volume following meniscal allograft transplantation.
Between January 2008 and March 2013, 315 patients underwent MAT. Among these patients, 24 patients were enrolled in the study and followed up using a 3.0 T MR scanner at baseline (preoperative day), 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after MAT. Cartilage segmentation and volumetric measurement was performed by using a semi-automated graph-cut algorithm. Cartilage volume of femur and tibia was quantified. We divided cartilage volume into medial and lateral compartment to compare the difference. Additionally, we measured cartilage volume of femur and tibia in defined regions of interest (ROIs) in order to get rid of segmentation errors. Cartilage volume in ROIs was divided into the meniscus covering zone and the cartilage to cartilage zone.
Cartilage volume in ROIs showed no significant difference between before and 1-year after MAT. Cartilage volume of femur and tibia in ROIs decreased until 3 months after MAT and recovered to an approximate figure of preoperative value by 1-year after MAT.
After MAT, cartilage volume displayed immediate postoperative decrease and gradual recovery approximately equal to preoperative value. Long term follow-up is needed for investigation of further change of cartilage volume.