Review
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
Table 1 Comprehensive comparison of cartilage imaging modalities
Imaging modality
Technical requirements
Key strengths
Primary limitations
Clinical utility
RadiographyBasic X-ray systems; optional diffraction-enhanced setupsWidely available; economical; excellent for assessing bony landmarks and joint spaceIndirect cartilage evaluation; radiation exposure; limited soft-tissue contrastBaseline assessment of joint integrity; detection of osteophytes and subchondral changes
UltrasoundHigh-frequency transducers (≥ 20 MHz); skilled operatorReal-time imaging; portable; cost-efficient for superficial structuresOperator dependency; anisotropy artifacts; limited penetration for deep jointsRapid evaluation of superficial cartilage defects, particularly in small joints
CT arthrographyCT scanner; intra-articular contrast; experienced personnelHigh spatial resolution; excellent for visualizing osteochondral interfacesInvasive contrast injection; radiation dose; suboptimal soft-tissue contrastDetailed assessment of cartilage in small joints; evaluation of osteochondral lesions
MRI (morphological)1.5 T/3 T MRI systems; dedicated coils; standard sequencesSuperior soft-tissue contrast; multi-planar capabilities; non-ionizingLonger scan times; less sensitive to early biochemical alterationsDetailed 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 markersHigher cost; technical complexity; standardization challengesEarly 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 mappingT2 relaxation timeReflects water content and collagen fiber orientation within the matrixSensitive to early changes; quantitative; non-invasiveSusceptibility to motion artifacts; magnetic field inhomogeneitiesEarly detection of collagen disruption; monitoring therapeutic response
T2 mapping*T2* relaxation timeUses gradient-echo sequences with shorter echo times to capture rapid decay signalsEnables rapid, high-resolution 3D imagingSensitive to field inhomogeneities; requires high-field systemsDetailed microstructural assessment with improved spatial resolution
dGEMRICT1 relaxation time (post-contrast)Inverse correlation between GAG concentration and gadolinium uptakeDirect evaluation of GAG content; effective for early degeneration detectionProlonged imaging protocol; reliance on contrast agents; potential nephrotoxicityAssessment of cartilage biochemical integrity; predicting osteoarthritis progression
Sodium MRISodium ion concentrationMeasures sodium ions linked to proteoglycan density in the extracellular matrixContrast-agent free; direct assessment of proteoglycan contentLow signal-to-noise ratio; specialized hardware requirementsEarly biomarker for proteoglycan loss; research tool for regenerative interventions
T1ρ imagingT1ρ relaxation timeSensitive to interactions between water molecules and macromolecules (proteoglycans)Early detection of proteoglycan depletion; non-invasiveLimited availability; extended scan times; technical complexityEarly identification of biochemical changes in cartilage; monitoring early degeneration
gagCESTChemical exchange saturation transfer effectUtilizes the exchange of protons between water and GAGs to generate contrastHigh specificity to GAG; no contrast agents requiredRequires very high field strengths; long scan durationsPromising 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
MicrofractureMorphological MRI; T2 mapping; dGEMRICUniformity and integration of repair tissue; quantitative T2 changesEarly functional gains may be offset by the long-term vulnerability of fibrocartilageRefinement of imaging protocols to differentiate fibrocartilage from hyaline-like repair tissue
Osteochondral autograft transplantationMorphological MRI; CT arthrography; high-resolution 3D sequencesGraft congruence; signal homogeneity at the graft-host interfacePotential donor-site morbidity; risk of graft fragmentation or subchondral cyst formationDevelopment of predictive imaging markers for long-term graft viability and mechanical integration
Osteochondral allograft transplantationMRI; CT arthrography; T1ρ imagingViability of transplanted tissue; early biochemical alterations at the graft interfaceTime-sensitive graft viability; immunological responses and delayed integrationAdvanced imaging for real-time monitoring of graft immune response and viability
Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantationHigh-resolution MRI; T2/T1ρ mapping; dGEMRICRestoration of native signal intensity; uniformity in repair tissue; quantitative GAG levelsRisk of graft overgrowth; potential for revision surgery due to suboptimal integrationStandardization of imaging biomarkers to predict early signs of graft failure and guide intervention timing
Particulated juvenile allograft cartilage3D MRI sequences; T1ρ imaging; sodium MRIHomogeneity of the repair tissue; integration with adjacent native cartilage; proteoglycan consistencyUncertain long-term integration dynamics; variable repair tissue maturationLongitudinal imaging studies correlating early imaging biomarkers with clinical outcomes