Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Orthop. Jul 18, 2025; 16(7): 106416
Published online Jul 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i7.106416
Published online Jul 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i7.106416
Table 1 Comprehensive comparison of cartilage imaging modalities
Imaging modality | Technical requirements | Key strengths | Primary limitations | Clinical utility |
Radiography | Basic X-ray systems; optional diffraction-enhanced setups | Widely available; economical; excellent for assessing bony landmarks and joint space | Indirect cartilage evaluation; radiation exposure; limited soft-tissue contrast | Baseline assessment of joint integrity; detection of osteophytes and subchondral changes |
Ultrasound | High-frequency transducers (≥ 20 MHz); skilled operator | Real-time imaging; portable; cost-efficient for superficial structures | Operator dependency; anisotropy artifacts; limited penetration for deep joints | Rapid evaluation of superficial cartilage defects, particularly in small joints |
CT arthrography | CT scanner; intra-articular contrast; experienced personnel | High spatial resolution; excellent for visualizing osteochondral interfaces | Invasive contrast injection; radiation dose; suboptimal soft-tissue contrast | Detailed assessment of cartilage in small joints; evaluation of osteochondral lesions |
MRI (morphological) | 1.5 T/3 T MRI systems; dedicated coils; standard sequences | Superior soft-tissue contrast; multi-planar capabilities; non-ionizing | Longer scan times; less sensitive to early biochemical alterations | Detailed structural evaluation; mapping of lesion extent and subchondral involvement |
MRI (compositional) | Advanced MRI protocols; specialized sequences (e.g., T2 mapping, dGEMRIC) | Quantitative assessment of biochemical changes; early detection of degenerative markers | Higher cost; technical complexity; standardization challenges | Early diagnosis of cartilage degeneration; monitoring of regenerative therapies |
Table 2 Advanced magnetic resonance imaging compositional metrics for cartilage assessment
Compositional technique | Quantitative parameter | Underlying biophysical principle | Advantages | Current technical challenges | Potential clinical utility |
T2 mapping | T2 relaxation time | Reflects water content and collagen fiber orientation within the matrix | Sensitive to early changes; quantitative; non-invasive | Susceptibility to motion artifacts; magnetic field inhomogeneities | Early detection of collagen disruption; monitoring therapeutic response |
T2 mapping* | T2* relaxation time | Uses gradient-echo sequences with shorter echo times to capture rapid decay signals | Enables rapid, high-resolution 3D imaging | Sensitive to field inhomogeneities; requires high-field systems | Detailed microstructural assessment with improved spatial resolution |
dGEMRIC | T1 relaxation time (post-contrast) | Inverse correlation between GAG concentration and gadolinium uptake | Direct evaluation of GAG content; effective for early degeneration detection | Prolonged imaging protocol; reliance on contrast agents; potential nephrotoxicity | Assessment of cartilage biochemical integrity; predicting osteoarthritis progression |
Sodium MRI | Sodium ion concentration | Measures sodium ions linked to proteoglycan density in the extracellular matrix | Contrast-agent free; direct assessment of proteoglycan content | Low signal-to-noise ratio; specialized hardware requirements | Early biomarker for proteoglycan loss; research tool for regenerative interventions |
T1ρ imaging | T1ρ relaxation time | Sensitive to interactions between water molecules and macromolecules (proteoglycans) | Early detection of proteoglycan depletion; non-invasive | Limited availability; extended scan times; technical complexity | Early identification of biochemical changes in cartilage; monitoring early degeneration |
gagCEST | Chemical exchange saturation transfer effect | Utilizes the exchange of protons between water and GAGs to generate contrast | High specificity to GAG; no contrast agents required | Requires very high field strengths; long scan durations | Promising tool for early osteoarthritis detection and precise regenerative monitoring |
Table 3 Integration of imaging with regenerative strategies - diagnostic and prognostic markers
Regenerative strategy | Imaging modalities utilized | Key imaging biomarkers | Prognostic implications | Future research directions |
Microfracture | Morphological MRI; T2 mapping; dGEMRIC | Uniformity and integration of repair tissue; quantitative T2 changes | Early functional gains may be offset by the long-term vulnerability of fibrocartilage | Refinement of imaging protocols to differentiate fibrocartilage from hyaline-like repair tissue |
Osteochondral autograft transplantation | Morphological MRI; CT arthrography; high-resolution 3D sequences | Graft congruence; signal homogeneity at the graft-host interface | Potential donor-site morbidity; risk of graft fragmentation or subchondral cyst formation | Development of predictive imaging markers for long-term graft viability and mechanical integration |
Osteochondral allograft transplantation | MRI; CT arthrography; T1ρ imaging | Viability of transplanted tissue; early biochemical alterations at the graft interface | Time-sensitive graft viability; immunological responses and delayed integration | Advanced imaging for real-time monitoring of graft immune response and viability |
Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation | High-resolution MRI; T2/T1ρ mapping; dGEMRIC | Restoration of native signal intensity; uniformity in repair tissue; quantitative GAG levels | Risk of graft overgrowth; potential for revision surgery due to suboptimal integration | Standardization of imaging biomarkers to predict early signs of graft failure and guide intervention timing |
Particulated juvenile allograft cartilage | 3D MRI sequences; T1ρ imaging; sodium MRI | Homogeneity of the repair tissue; integration with adjacent native cartilage; proteoglycan consistency | Uncertain long-term integration dynamics; variable repair tissue maturation | Longitudinal imaging studies correlating early imaging biomarkers with clinical outcomes |
- Citation: Jeyaraman M, Jeyaraman N, Nallakumarasamy A, Ramasubramanian S, Muthu S. Insights of cartilage imaging in cartilage regeneration. World J Orthop 2025; 16(7): 106416
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v16/i7/106416.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v16.i7.106416