Real-world diagnostic performance of knee MRI protocols accelerated using simultaneous multi-slice acquisition and deep learning reconstruction.
Authors
Affiliations (4)
Affiliations (4)
- Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. [email protected].
- Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R), Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. [email protected].
- Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
- Visage Imaging, GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
To assess whether accelerated knee MRI protocols using simultaneous multi-slice (SMS) and deep learning reconstruction (DLR) are non-inferior to a conventional parallel imaging protocol for detecting internal derangement injuries. This retrospective cohort study included 1055 patients who underwent knee MRI followed by arthroscopy within 180 days. Patients were scanned using either a conventional protocol (n = 226), an accelerated SMS protocol (n = 406), or a SMS with DLR protocol (n = 423). Each group included consecutive exams. Imaging was performed on 3 T MRI using five standardized two-dimensional turbo spin echo sequences. Radiology interpretations were compared with arthroscopy (reference standard) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), medial meniscus (MM), and lateral meniscus (LM) tears. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using non-parametric bootstrapping. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in sensitivity and specificity was ≤ 0.05. Among all patients, 666 had MM tears, 417 had LM tears, and 220 had ACL tears. Sensitivity for ACL tears was higher with accelerated protocols (0.96 and 0.98) than the conventional (0.85), with non-inferiority confirmed. Specificity was ≥ 0.98 across all protocols. MM sensitivity (0.94-0.95) met non-inferiority criteria. MM specificity (0.88-0.91) and LM sensitivity (0.63-0.68) were not statistically different across protocols but did not meet the non-inferiority margin. LM specificity (0.94) met non-inferiority criteria. Accelerated MRI protocols using SMS and DLR demonstrated comparable diagnostic performance to the reference protocol. Although not all metrics met the strict non-inferiority margin, none showed statistically significant reductions in sensitivity or specificity. These findings support the clinical adoption of accelerated protocols for faster, high-throughput knee imaging.