1
|
Kogan F, Yoon D, Teeter MG, Chaudhari AJ, Hales L, Barbieri M, Gold GE, Vainberg Y, Goyal A, Watkins L. Multimodal positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in non-oncologic musculoskeletal radiology. Skeletal Radiol 2024:10.1007/s00256-024-04640-4. [PMID: 38492029 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-024-04640-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2024] [Revised: 02/27/2024] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 03/18/2024]
Abstract
Musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders are associated with large impacts on patient's pain and quality of life. Conventional morphological imaging of tissue structure is limited in its ability to detect pain generators, early MSK disease, and rapidly assess treatment efficacy. Positron emission tomography (PET), which offers unique capabilities to evaluate molecular and metabolic processes, can provide novel information about early pathophysiologic changes that occur before structural or even microstructural changes can be detected. This sensitivity not only makes it a powerful tool for detection and characterization of disease, but also a tool able to rapidly assess the efficacy of therapies. These benefits have garnered more attention to PET imaging of MSK disorders in recent years. In this narrative review, we discuss several applications of multimodal PET imaging in non-oncologic MSK diseases including arthritis, osteoporosis, and sources of pain and inflammation. We also describe technical considerations and recent advancements in technology and radiotracers as well as areas of emerging interest for future applications of multimodal PET imaging of MSK conditions. Overall, we present evidence that the incorporation of PET through multimodal imaging offers an exciting addition to the field of MSK radiology and will likely prove valuable in the transition to an era of precision medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Feliks Kogan
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
| | - Daehyun Yoon
- Department of Radiology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Matthew G Teeter
- Department of Medical Biophysics, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | | | - Laurel Hales
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Marco Barbieri
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Garry E Gold
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Yael Vainberg
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Ananya Goyal
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Lauren Watkins
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ter Wee MA, Dobbe JGG, Buijs GS, Kievit AJ, Schafroth MU, Maas M, Blankevoort L, Streekstra GJ. Load-induced deformation of the tibia and its effect on implant loosening detection. Sci Rep 2023; 13:21769. [PMID: 38066256 PMCID: PMC10709436 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-49177-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023] Open
Abstract
CT imaging under external valgus and varus loading conditions and consecutive image analysis can be used to detect tibial implant loosening after total knee arthroplasty. However, the applied load causes the tibia to deform, which could result in an overestimation of implant displacement. This research evaluates the extent of tibia deformation and its effect on measuring implant displacement. Ten cadaver specimen with TKA were CT-scanned under valgus/varus loading (20 Nm), first implanted without bone cement fixation (mimicking a loose implant) and subsequently with bone cement fixation (mimicking a fixed implant). By means of image analysis, three relative displacements were assessed: (1) between the proximal and distal tibia (measure of deformation), (2) between the implant and the whole tibia (including potential deformation effect) and (3) between the implant and the proximal tibia (reduced deformation effect). Relative displacements were quantified in terms of translations along, and rotations about the axes of a local coordinate system. As a measure of deformation, the proximal tibia moved relative to the distal tibia by, on average 1.27 mm (± 0.50 mm) and 0.64° (± 0.25°). Deformation caused an overestimation of implant displacement in the cemented implant. The implant displaced with respect to the whole tibia by 0.45 mm (± 0.22 mm) and 0.79° (± 0.38°). Relative to the proximal tibia, the implant moved by 0.23 mm (± 0.10 mm) and 0.62° (± 0.34°). The differentiation between loose and fixed implants improved when tibia deformation was compensated for by using the proximal tibia rather than the whole tibia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M A Ter Wee
- Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - J G G Dobbe
- Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G S Buijs
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A J Kievit
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M U Schafroth
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Maas
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L Blankevoort
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G J Streekstra
- Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|