Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2022; 26(03): 216-229
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1743405
Review Article

Update: Posttreatment Imaging of the Knee after Cartilage Repair

Rafael Heiss 
1   Department of Radiology, Universityhospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany
,
Ali Guermazi
2   Department of Radiology, VA Healthcare System, West Roxbury, Massachusetts
3   Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Rolf Janka
1   Department of Radiology, Universityhospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany
,
Michael Uder
1   Department of Radiology, Universityhospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany
,
Xinning Li
4   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Daichi Hayashi
5   Department of Radiology, Stony Brook University Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Frank W. Roemer
1   Department of Radiology, Universityhospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany
3   Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Focal cartilage lesions are common pathologies at the knee joint that are considered important risk factors for the premature development of osteoarthritis. A wide range of surgical options, including but not limited to marrow stimulation, osteochondral auto- and allografting, and autologous chondrocyte implantation, allows for targeted treatment of focal cartilage defects. Arthroscopy is the standard of reference for the assessment of cartilage integrity and quality before and after repair. However, deep cartilage layers, intrachondral composition, and the subchondral bone are only partially or not at all visualized with arthroscopy. In contrast, magnetic resonance imaging offers noninvasive evaluation of the cartilage repair site, the subchondral bone, and the soft tissues of the joint pre- and postsurgery. Radiologists need to be familiar with the different surgical procedures available and their characteristic postsurgical imaging appearances to assess treatment success and possible complications adequately. We provide an overview of the most commonly performed surgical procedures for cartilage repair at the knee and typical postsurgical imaging characteristics.

Keywords

cartilage - surgery - postoperative imaging - magnetic resonance imaging - compositional imaging


Publication History

Article published online:
02 June 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Curl WW, Krome J, Gordon ES, Rushing J, Smith BP, Poehling GG. Cartilage injuries: a review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy 1997; 13 (04) 456-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Messner K, Maletius W. The long-term prognosis for severe damage to weight-bearing cartilage in the knee: a 14-year clinical and radiographic follow-up in 28 young athletes. Acta Orthop Scand 1996; 67 (02) 165-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Widuchowski W, Widuchowski J, Trzaska T. Articular cartilage defects: study of 25,124 knee arthroscopies. Knee 2007; 14 (03) 177-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Alizai H. et al. State of the art: MR imaging after knee cartilage repair surgery. Radiology 2015; 277 (01) 23-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Arøen A, Løken S, Heir S. et al. Articular cartilage lesions in 993 consecutive knee arthroscopies. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (01) 211-215
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Hjelle K, Solheim E, Strand T, Muri R, Brittberg M. Articular cartilage defects in 1,000 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy 2002; 18 (07) 730-734
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Mithoefer K, Hambly K, Della Villa S, Silvers H, Mandelbaum BR. Return to sports participation after articular cartilage repair in the knee: scientific evidence. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (Suppl. 01) 167S-176S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bay-Jensen AC, Hoegh-Madsen S, Dam E. et al. Which elements are involved in reversible and irreversible cartilage degradation in osteoarthritis?. Rheumatol Int 2010; 30 (04) 435-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hochberg MC, Guermazi A, Guehring H. et al. Effect of intra-articular sprifermin vs placebo on femorotibial joint cartilage thickness in patients with osteoarthritis: the FORWARD randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019; 322 (14) 1360-1370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gühring HKJ, Moreau F, Daelken B. et al. Cartilage thickness modification with sprifermin in knee osteoarthritis patients translates into symptomatic improvement over placebo in patients at risk of further structural and symptomatic progression: post-hoc analysis of a phase II trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2019; 78: 70-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cain EL, Clancy WG. Treatment algorithm for osteochondral injuries of the knee. Clin Sports Med 2001; 20 (02) 321-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Heiss R, Janka R, Uder M, Nagel AM, Trattnig S, Roemer FW. Update cartilage imaging of the small joints: Focus on high-field MRI. [in German]. Radiologe 2019; 59 (08) 732-741
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Blackman AJ, Smith MV, Flanigan DC, Matava MJ, Wright RW, Brophy RH. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and clinical outcomes after cartilage repair surgery in the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (06) 1426-1434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 de Windt TS, Welsch GH, Brittberg M. et al. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and clinical outcomes after knee cartilage repair: letter to the editor. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (11) NP48-NP50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Marlovits S, Singer P, Zeller P, Mandl I, Haller J, Trattnig S. Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) for the evaluation of autologous chondrocyte transplantation: determination of interobserver variability and correlation to clinical outcome after 2 years. Eur J Radiol 2006; 57 (01) 16-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Welsch GH, Zak L, Mamisch TC, Resinger C, Marlovits S, Trattnig S. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) score assessed with an isotropic three-dimensional true fast imaging with steady-state precession sequence at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2009; 44 (09) 603-612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wuennemann F, Rehnitz C, Weber MA. Imaging of the knee following repair of focal articular cartilage lesions. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2018; 22 (04) 377-385
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Weber MA, Wünnemann F, Jungmann PM, Kuni B, Rehnitz C. Modern cartilage imaging of the ankle. Rofo 2017; 189 (10) 945-956
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Krug R, Stehling C, Kelley DA, Majumdar S, Link TM. Imaging of the musculoskeletal system in vivo using ultra-high field magnetic resonance at 7 T. Invest Radiol 2009; 44 (09) 613-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kijowski R, Blankenbaker DG, Munoz Del Rio A, Baer GS, Graf BK. Evaluation of the articular cartilage of the knee joint: value of adding a T2 mapping sequence to a routine MR imaging protocol. Radiology 2013; 267 (02) 503-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rubenstein JD, Li JG, Majumdar S, Henkelman RM. Image resolution and signal-to-noise ratio requirements for MR imaging of degenerative cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169 (04) 1089-1096
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Roemer FW, Kwoh CK, Hannon MJ. et al. Semiquantitative assessment of focal cartilage damage at 3T MRI: a comparative study of dual echo at steady state (DESS) and intermediate-weighted (IW) fat suppressed fast spin echo sequences. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80 (02) e126-e131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mohr A. The value of water-excitation 3D FLASH and fat-saturated PDw TSE MR imaging for detecting and grading articular cartilage lesions of the knee. Skeletal Radiol 2003; 32 (07) 396-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Binks DA, Hodgson RJ, Ries ME. et al. Quantitative parametric MRI of articular cartilage: a review of progress and open challenges. Br J Radiol 2013; 86 (1023): 20120163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kretzschmar M, Nevitt MC, Schwaiger BJ, Joseph GB, McCulloch CE, Link TM. Spatial distribution and temporal progression of T2 relaxation time values in knee cartilage prior to the onset of cartilage lesions—data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019; 27 (05) 737-745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Alparslan B, Ozkan I, Acar U, Cullu E, Savk SO. The microfracture technique in the treatment of full-thickness chondral lesions of the knee. [in Turkish]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2007; 41 (Suppl. 02) 62-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chalian M, Li X, Guermazi A. et al; RSNA QIBA MSK Biomarker Committee, SNA QIBA MSK Biomarker Committee Members. The QIBA profile for MRI-based compositional imaging of knee cartilage. Radiology 2021; 301 (02) 423-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Baum T, Joseph GB, Karampinos DC, Jungmann PM, Link TM, Bauer JS. Cartilage and meniscal T2 relaxation time as non-invasive biomarker for knee osteoarthritis and cartilage repair procedures. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21 (10) 1474-1484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Domayer SE, Kutscha-Lissberg F, Welsch G. et al. T2 mapping in the knee after microfracture at 3.0 T: correlation of global T2 values and clinical outcome - preliminary results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008; 16 (08) 903-908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Welsch GH, Mamisch TC, Domayer SE. et al. Cartilage T2 assessment at 3-T MR imaging: in vivo differentiation of normal hyaline cartilage from reparative tissue after two cartilage repair procedures—initial experience. Radiology 2008; 247 (01) 154-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Welsch GH, Mamisch TC, Marlovits S. et al. Quantitative T2 mapping during follow-up after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT): full-thickness and zonal evaluation to visualize the maturation of cartilage repair tissue. J Orthop Res 2009; 27 (07) 957-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Niethammer TR, Safi E, Ficklscherer A. et al. Graft maturation of autologous chondrocyte implantation: magnetic resonance investigation with T2 mapping. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (09) 2199-2204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mosher TJ, Zhang Z, Reddy R. et al. Knee articular cartilage damage in osteoarthritis: analysis of MR image biomarker reproducibility in ACRIN-PA 4001 multicenter trial. Radiology 2011; 258 (03) 832-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bae WC, Du J, Bydder GM, Chung CB. Conventional and ultrashort time-to-echo magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage, meniscus, and intervertebral disk. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 21 (05) 275-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nissi MJ, Rieppo J, Töyräs J. et al. T(2) relaxation time mapping reveals age- and species-related diversity of collagen network architecture in articular cartilage. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006; 14 (12) 1265-1271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Li X, Pedoia V, Kumar D. et al. Cartilage T1ρ and T2 relaxation times: longitudinal reproducibility and variations using different coils, MR systems and sites. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23 (12) 2214-2223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Schneider E, NessAiver M, White D. et al. The osteoarthritis initiative (OAI) magnetic resonance imaging quality assurance methods and results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008; 16 (09) 994-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Balamoody S, Williams TG, Wolstenholme C. et al. Magnetic resonance transverse relaxation time T2 of knee cartilage in osteoarthritis at 3-T: a cross-sectional multicentre, multivendor reproducibility study. Skeletal Radiol 2013; 42 (04) 511-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Roemer FW, Kijowski R, Guermazi A. Editorial: from theory to practice—the challenges of compositional MRI in osteoarthritis research. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25 (12) 1923-1925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Shiomi T, Nishii T, Myoui A, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N. Influence of knee positions on T2, T*2, and dGEMRIC mapping in porcine knee cartilage. Magn Reson Med 2010; 64 (03) 707-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hesper T, Hosalkar HS, Bittersohl D. et al. T2* mapping for articular cartilage assessment: principles, current applications, and future prospects. Skeletal Radiol 2014; 43 (10) 1429-1445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Mamisch TC, Hughes T, Mosher TJ. et al. T2 star relaxation times for assessment of articular cartilage at 3 T: a feasibility study. Skeletal Radiol 2012; 41 (03) 287-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Newbould RD, Miller SR, Toms LD. et al. T2* measurement of the knee articular cartilage in osteoarthritis at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35 (06) 1422-1429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Stelzeneder D, Shetty AA, Kim SJ. et al. Repair tissue quality after arthroscopic autologous collagen-induced chondrogenesis (ACIC) assessed via T2* mapping. Skeletal Radiol 2013; 42 (12) 1657-1664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Burstein D, Velyvis J, Scott KT. et al. Protocol issues for delayed Gd(DTPA)(2-)-enhanced MRI (dGEMRIC) for clinical evaluation of articular cartilage. Magn Reson Med 2001; 45 (01) 36-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kang Y, Choi JY, Yoo HJ, Hong SH, Kang HS. Delayed gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of cartilage: a comparative analysis of different gadolinium-based contrast agents in an ex vivo porcine model. Radiology 2017; 282 (03) 734-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Rehnitz C, Do T, Klaan B. et al. Feasibility of using half-dose Gd-BOPTA for delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) at the knee, compared with standard-dose Gd-DTPA. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020; 51 (01) 144-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Trattnig S, Mamisch TC, Pinker K. et al. Differentiating normal hyaline cartilage from post-surgical repair tissue using fast gradient echo imaging in delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI (dGEMRIC) at 3 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2008; 18 (06) 1251-1259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kurkijärvi JE, Mattila L, Ojala RO. et al. Evaluation of cartilage repair in the distal femur after autologous chondrocyte transplantation using T2 relaxation time and dGEMRIC. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15 (04) 372-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Newbould RD, Miller SR, Upadhyay N. et al. T1-weighted sodium MRI of the articulator cartilage in osteoarthritis: a cross sectional and longitudinal study. PLoS One 2013; 8 (08) e73067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Madelin G, Babb J, Xia D. et al. Articular cartilage: evaluation with fluid-suppressed 7.0-T sodium MR imaging in subjects with and subjects without osteoarthritis. Radiology 2013; 268 (02) 481-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Krusche-Mandl I, Schmitt B, Zak L. et al. Long-term results 8 years after autologous osteochondral transplantation: 7 T gagCEST and sodium magnetic resonance imaging with morphological and clinical correlation. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20 (05) 357-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Zbýň S, Stelzeneder D, Welsch GH. et al. Evaluation of native hyaline cartilage and repair tissue after two cartilage repair surgery techniques with 23Na MR imaging at 7 T: initial experience. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20 (08) 837-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Trattnig S, Welsch GH, Juras V. et al. 23Na MR imaging at 7 T after knee matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation preliminary results. Radiology 2010; 257 (01) 175-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Gersing AS, Schwaiger BJ, Wortler K, Jungmann PM. Advanced cartilage imaging for detection of cartilage injuries and osteochondral lesions. [in German]. Radiologe 2018; 58 (05) 422-432
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 van Tiel J, Siebelt M, Waarsing JH. et al. CT arthrography of the human knee to measure cartilage quality with low radiation dose. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20 (07) 678-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Trattnig S, Winalski CS, Marlovits S, Jurvelin JS, Welsch GH, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage repair: a review. Cartilage 2011; 2 (01) 5-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Alparslan L, Winalski CS, Boutin RD, Minas T. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage repair. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2001; 5 (04) 345-363
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Choi YS, Potter HG, Chun TJ. MR imaging of cartilage repair in the knee and ankle. Radiographics 2008; 28 (04) 1043-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Link TM, Mischung J, Wörtler K, Burkart A, Rummeny EJ, Imhoff AB. Normal and pathological MR findings in osteochondral autografts with longitudinal follow-up. Eur Radiol 2006; 16 (01) 88-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Schreiner MM, Raudner M, Marlovits S. et al. The MOCART (Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue) 2.0 Knee Score and Atlas. Cartilage 2021; 13 (1_Suppl): 571S-587S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Roemer FW, Guermazi A, Trattnig S. et al. Whole joint MRI assessment of surgical cartilage repair of the knee: cartilage repair osteoarthritis knee score (CROAKS). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014; 22 (06) 779-799
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Camp CL, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ. Current concepts of articular cartilage restoration techniques in the knee. Sports Health 2014; 6 (03) 265-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Khazzam M. Augmented microfracture: Is this the Holy Grail that we have been searching for in the treatment of cartilage injuries?: Commentary on an article by William D. Stanish, MD, et al.: “Novel scaffold-based BST-CarGel treatment results in superior cartilage repair compared with microfracture in a randomized controlled trial.”. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (18) e137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Nehrer S, Spector M, Minas T. Histologic analysis of tissue after failed cartilage repair procedures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (365) 149-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, Kreuz PC, Mandelbaum BR. Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee: an evidence-based systematic analysis. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (10) 2053-2063
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Campbell AB, Pineda M, Harris JD, Flanigan DC. Return to sport after articular cartilage repair in athletes' knees: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (04) 651-68.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Farr J, Cole B, Dhawan A, Kercher J, Sherman S. Clinical cartilage restoration: evolution and overview. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (10) 2696-2705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Robert H. Chondral repair of the knee joint using mosaicplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97 (04) 418-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Ahmad CS, Cohen ZA, Levine WN, Ateshian GA, Mow VC. Biomechanical and topographic considerations for autologous osteochondral grafting in the knee. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (02) 201-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Brittberg M, Lindahl A, Nilsson A, Ohlsson C, Isaksson O, Peterson L. Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation. N Engl J Med 1994; 331 (14) 889-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Goyal D, Goyal A, Keyhani S, Lee EH, Hui JH. Evidence-based status of second- and third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation over first generation: a systematic review of level I and II studies. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (11) 1872-1878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Trattnig S, Pinker K, Krestan C, Plank C, Millington S, Marlovits S. Matrix-based autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage repair with HyalograftC: two-year follow-up by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 2006; 57 (01) 9-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Trattnig S, Ba-Ssalamah A, Pinker K, Plank C, Vecsei V, Marlovits S. Matrix-based autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage repair: noninvasive monitoring by high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23 (07) 779-787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Hayashi D, Li X, Murakami AM, Roemer FW, Trattnig S, Guermazi A. Understanding magnetic resonance imaging of knee cartilage repair: a focus on clinical relevance. Cartilage 2018; 9 (03) 223-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Barrett I, King AH, Riester S. et al. Internal fixation of unstable osteochondritis dissecans in the skeletally mature knee with metal screws. Cartilage 2016; 7 (02) 157-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Webb JE, Lewallen LW, Christophersen C, Krych AJ, McIntosh AL. Clinical outcome of internal fixation of unstable juvenile osteochondritis dissecans lesions of the knee. Orthopedics 2013; 36 (11) e1444-e1449
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Filli L, Jud L, Luechinger R. et al. Material-dependent implant artifact reduction using SEMAC-VAT and MAVRIC: a prospective MRI phantom study. Invest Radiol 2017; 52 (06) 381-387
    Google Scholar