OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-field MRI scanner compared to high-field scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of 3 months, 401 patients with diseases of the kidney (n = 78), the shoulder (n = 122), the spine (n = 105) and the cerebrum (n = 96) were prospectively evaluated in four participating centers. They all underwent clinical evaluation, low-field and high-field MRI examination and surgical or follow-up confirmation of diagnosis. Clinical, histopathologic, high-field and low-field MRI diagnoses were recorded in standardized questionnaires that were centrally evaluated. Statistical evaluation comprised two parts: ROC analysis assessed accuracy of MRI and clinical diagnoses; furthermore rates of concordance of high- and low-field MRI diagnosis were calculated. RESULTS: We found no statistically relevant difference in high-field MRI diagnosis compared to low-field MRI diagnostic accuracy measured by clinical or surgical gold standard in three of the four regions examined; in cerebral examinations there was a small yet significant advantage for the high-field systems (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We conclude that the open low-field scanner we evaluated using clinical and surgical gold standard as reference is able to achieve comparable diagnostic accuracy compared to high-field scanners at lower costs and greater patient comfort. Limitations due to field strength (signal-to-noise ratio, resolution, scan time) seem to be relevant only in a very small number of cases that warrant high-field examination.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-field MRI scanner compared to high-field scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of 3 months, 401 patients with diseases of the kidney (n = 78), the shoulder (n = 122), the spine (n = 105) and the cerebrum (n = 96) were prospectively evaluated in four participating centers. They all underwent clinical evaluation, low-field and high-field MRI examination and surgical or follow-up confirmation of diagnosis. Clinical, histopathologic, high-field and low-field MRI diagnoses were recorded in standardized questionnaires that were centrally evaluated. Statistical evaluation comprised two parts: ROC analysis assessed accuracy of MRI and clinical diagnoses; furthermore rates of concordance of high- and low-field MRI diagnosis were calculated. RESULTS: We found no statistically relevant difference in high-field MRI diagnosis compared to low-field MRI diagnostic accuracy measured by clinical or surgical gold standard in three of the four regions examined; in cerebral examinations there was a small yet significant advantage for the high-field systems (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We conclude that the open low-field scanner we evaluated using clinical and surgical gold standard as reference is able to achieve comparable diagnostic accuracy compared to high-field scanners at lower costs and greater patient comfort. Limitations due to field strength (signal-to-noise ratio, resolution, scan time) seem to be relevant only in a very small number of cases that warrant high-field examination.
Authors: I Savukov; T Karaulanov; A Castro; P Volegov; A Matlashov; A Urbatis; J Gomez; M Espy Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Alice Kongsted; Joan S Sorensen; Hans Andersen; Bjarne Keseler; Troels S Jensen; Tom Bendix Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2008-05-30 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Judith Enders; Elke Zimmermann; Matthias Rief; Peter Martus; Randolf Klingebiel; Patrick Asbach; Christian Klessen; Gerd Diederichs; Thomas Bengner; Ulf Teichgräber; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Christopher S Lee; Shane M Davis; Claire McGroder; Shalen Kouk; Ryan M Sung; William B Stetson; Scott E Powell Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2014-07-02