Table 2.
MRI parameter changes and correlation with clinical outcomes.
| MRI parameter change following intervention | MRI correlation with clinical outcome | Correlation Coefficienta and statistical measures | Included in a Meta analysis Or Reason for not inclusion |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albrecht 2017 [63] | T2 relaxation time of regenerate tissue improved from 3 m to 24 m (p < 0.003) Statistically significant decrease in T2 index from 3 to 24 months (P < 0.011) | No correlation seen between T2 index and IKDC score | – | No correlation coefficient available |
| Besselink 2020 [68] | Overall average dGEMRIC change over 2 years non-significant. HTO statistically significant reduction in medial dGEMRIC indices and increase (improvement) lateral side. For KJD changes non-significant | One unit increase in WOMAC associated with an increase in dGEMRIC indices of about 1.6 ms (p < 0.0001) | – | No correlation coefficient available |
| Brown 2014 [71] | No significant difference between mean T2 values in deep zone allograft and control cartilage at 1 or 2 years. T2 values significantly higher in superficial zone of allograft compared with controls at 1 and 2 years |
Moderate to strong correlations between relative relaxation rate and IKDC and KOOS | IKDC score (r = −0.75, P = 0.019) KOOS Pain (r = −0.86, P = 0.003), KOOS Symptoms (r = −0.66, P = 0.052), KOOS ADL (r = −0.89, P = 0.001), KOOS Sports (r = −0.72, P = 0.03), KOOS QoL (r = −0.73, P = 0.026) |
Relative relaxation rate not comparable to other correlations |
| de Windt 2017 [72] | No significant difference between T1rho values of the repair cartilage (RC) and healthy cartilage (HC) at 12 months p > 0.05 | Moderate correlation between T1rho of repair cartilage to healthy cartilage ratio (RC/HC) and VAS pain 12 months, no correlation with KOOS | T1rho and VAS (r = −0.46; p < 0.05) | No other T1rho studies with correlation coefficients |
| Domayer 2008 [58] | Global T2 value of repair tissue differed significantly p < 0.001 from global T2 values of normal hyaline cartilage | T2 index (T2 value of repair tissue relative to normal cartilage) correlated with outcome of Lysholm score and IKDC subjective knee evaluation form but no correlation with IKDC knee examination form | T2 and Lysholm (r = 0.64 P < 0.001) | Included in T2 index meta-analysis |
| T2 and IKDC (r = 0.549 P = 0.005) | Included in T2 index meta-analysis | |||
| Eshed 2012 [64] | No preoperative MRI | No statistically significant correlation between IKDC and zonal T2 values | T2 and IKDC (r = −0.31 p = 0.109) | Condylar T2 value correlation not comparable to other correlations |
| Gersing 2019 [65] | Significant decrease in T2 value between 12 and 24 months, P = 0.009 | No correlation of T2 value and Tegner activity score p > 0.05 | – | No correlation coefficient available |
| Ibarra 2021 [59] | T2 values repaired tissues MACT showed statistically significant decrease P = 0.001, MFx not significant change p = 0.211. | No correlation seen | – | No correlation coefficient available |
| Jungmann 2015 [69] | increase in T2 values compared to control contralateral knees | No statistically significant correlation seen for Global T2 values and Lysholm score, and Global T2 side-to-side differences with Lysholm score. Repair tissue T2 values with Lysholm score |
Global T2 and Lysholm −0.04 | Global T2 values not comparable to other correlations |
| Global T2 side-to-side differences with Lysholm −0.35 | Global T2 side-to-side differences not comparable to other correlations | |||
| Repair tissue T2 values with Lysholm (r = 0.36 P > 0.05) | Included in T2 values meta- analysis | |||
| Krusche-Mandl 2012 [70] | Statistically significant difference T2 for native and repair cartilage p = 0.0057 and for CEST p = 0.0012, and for sodium SNR p = 0.0005 | Statistically significant correlation between T2-mapping and modified Lysholm score | T2 and IKDC -0.233 | Native compared to repair not comparable to other correlations |
| T2 and Lysholm (r = −0.667 95a CI (−0.922; −0.005)) | Native compared to repair not comparable to other correlations | |||
| T2 and VAS 0.226 | Native compared to repair not comparable to other correlations | |||
| CEST and IKDC 0.050 | Not included as no other CEST studies with correlation coefficients | |||
| CEST and Lysholm 0.467 | Not included as no other CEST studies with correlation coefficients | |||
| CEST and VAS -0.279 | Not included as no other CEST studies with correlation coefficients | |||
| Na SNR and IKDC 0.238 | Not included as no other Na SNR studies with correlation coefficients | |||
| Na SNR and Lysholm −0.214 | Not included as no other Na SNR studies with correlation coefficients | |||
| Na SNR and VAS -0.152 | Not included as no other Na SNR studies with correlation coefficients | |||
| Niethammer 2014 [66] | Significant decrease in T2 relaxation from 6 m to 24 and 26 m. | No statistically significant correlation between T2 relaxation time and IKDC scores at 6 month (P = 0.7), 12 month (P = 0.54), 24 month (P = 0.66), or 36 month (P = 0.8). No correlations between T2 and VAS scores |
– | No correlation coefficient available |
| Ossendorff 2018 [56] | No statistically significant difference between groups | Statistically significant correlation between T2 relaxation time and NAS for function and Lysholm score | T2 with NAS (r = 0.319 P = 0.035) | Included in T2 values meta- analysis |
| T2 with Lysholm (r = 0.316 P = 0.037) | Included in T2 values meta- analysis | |||
| Salzmann 2009 [67] | No preoperative MRI | Among MACT patients Lsyholm score correlated with the RT (repair tissue) T2 value | T2 and Lysholm (r = 0.734 P = 0.038) | Included in T2 values meta- analysis |
| Salzmann 2014 [54] | Statistically significant lower T2 values compared to contralateral knee | RT (repair tissue) T2 value correlated with postoperative NAS pain score No significant relationship between T2 relaxation times and Lysholm score |
T2 and NAS (r = −0.28 P = 0.4) | NAS score not comparable to other PROM scores |
| – | No correlation coefficient available | |||
| Stanish 2013 [60] | Compared between treatments not to preop | No correlation between T2 relaxation values with WOMAC score at 12 month follow-up | – | No correlation coefficient available |
| Tadenuma 2016 [57] | No preoperative MRI | Statistically significant correlation between T1 and clinical outcome No correlation between T2 and clinical outcome |
T1 and Lysholm (r = 0.823 P = 0.002) T2 and Lysholm (r = −0.128 P = 0.707) |
Included in T2 values meta- analysis |
| Vasiliadis 2010 [55] | No preoperative MRI | No correlation seen between dGEMRIC mean T1 values and KOOS scores | – | No correlation coefficient available |
| Welsch 2009 [61] | No preoperative MRI | Statistically significant correlation between diffusion weighted imaging index and Lysholm score. Weak, non-significant correlation between T2 index and Lysholm score |
DWI index and Lysholm (r = −0.557 P = 0.011) | Not included as no other DWI studies with correlation coefficients |
| T2 and Lysholm (r = 0.304 P = 0.193) | Included in T2 index meta- analysis | |||
| Zbyn 2012 [62] | No preoperative MRI | No correlation between sodium NMSI in repair tissue and clinical outcome. Medium association between clinical outcome and sodium repair-to-reference signal intensity ratio. | Na NMSI repair tissue and IKDC (r = −0.382 P = 0.276) Na NMSI repair tissue and Cincinnati (r = −0.521 P = 0.123) Na repair-to-reference and IKDC r = −0.502 P = 0.139 |
Not included as no other Na NMSI studies with correlation coefficients |
NMSI- Normalised Mean Signal Intensity, SNR – Signal to Noise Ratio.
‘Side-to-Side’ = Left knee vs Right knee.
a
Correlation coefficient presented where available.