PURPOSE: Hippocampal volumetry using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a common clinical study in epilepsy patients. Most clinical MR scans operate at 1.5 tesla (T); however, there is increasing use of scanners of a higher field strength. We analyzed whether control data of hippocampal volumes can be used across different field-strength scanners. METHODS: We studied eight adult healthy controls twice at both 1.5 and 3 T. Bilateral hippocampal volumes were measured by manual outlining. Measurement error was analyzed based on the variability between two measurements at the same field strength, and intrascanner variability was analyzed based on the difference between measurements obtained at 1.5 and at 3 T. RESULTS: The measurement error was 4.0% (+/-3.1) at 1.5 T, and 3.4% (+/-2.5) at 3 T. The intrascanner variability between measurements at 1.5 and at 3 T was 6% (+/-3.9). The intrascanner variability was not different from the measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: Control hippocampal volume measurements obtained at 1.5 and at 3 T were not different.
PURPOSE: Hippocampal volumetry using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a common clinical study in epilepsypatients. Most clinical MR scans operate at 1.5 tesla (T); however, there is increasing use of scanners of a higher field strength. We analyzed whether control data of hippocampal volumes can be used across different field-strength scanners. METHODS: We studied eight adult healthy controls twice at both 1.5 and 3 T. Bilateral hippocampal volumes were measured by manual outlining. Measurement error was analyzed based on the variability between two measurements at the same field strength, and intrascanner variability was analyzed based on the difference between measurements obtained at 1.5 and at 3 T. RESULTS: The measurement error was 4.0% (+/-3.1) at 1.5 T, and 3.4% (+/-2.5) at 3 T. The intrascanner variability between measurements at 1.5 and at 3 T was 6% (+/-3.9). The intrascanner variability was not different from the measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: Control hippocampal volume measurements obtained at 1.5 and at 3 T were not different.
Authors: Guilherme Silva; Cristina Martins; Nádia Moreira da Silva; Duarte Vieira; Dias Costa; Ricardo Rego; José Fonseca; João Paulo Silva Cunha Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2017-06-20
Authors: Jennifer A Ogren; Anatol Bragin; Charles L Wilson; Gil D Hoftman; Jack J Lin; Rebecca A Dutton; Tony A Fields; Arthur W Toga; Paul M Thompson; Jerome Engel; Richard J Staba Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2008-11-19 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Kerstin Bendfeldt; Louis Hofstetter; Pascal Kuster; Stefan Traud; Nicole Mueller-Lenke; Yvonne Naegelin; Ludwig Kappos; Achim Gass; Thomas E Nichols; Frederik Barkhof; Hugo Vrenken; Stefan D Roosendaal; Jeroen J G Geurts; Ernst-Wilhelm Radue; Stefan J Borgwardt Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Erik H Middlebrooks; Ronald G Quisling; Michael A King; Paul R Carney; Steven Roper; Luis M Colon-Perez; Thomas H Mareci Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2017-03-12 Impact factor: 1.246