Literature DB >> 15627183

3.0-T high-field magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: preliminary experiences.

N Morakkabati-Spitz1, J Gieseke, C Kuhl, G Lutterbey, M von Falkenhausen, F Traeber, O Zivanovic, H H Schild.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if 3.0 T allows for clinically useful pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, i.e. if familiar image quality and tissue contrast can be achieved at 3.0 T as compared with at 1.5 T. Adapting a 1.5-T protocol to the 3.0-T environment is subject to a variety of factors. In order to reduce the number of potential variables, we chose two cornerstones: the 3.0-T sequence should have similar spatial resolution and acquisition time; furthermore, the contrast parameters repetition time (TR) and echo time (TE) were kept identical. Based on this modified 3.0-T T2-weighted turbo spin-echo sequence (TR/TE 2,705/80 ms; 0.7x1.04x4 mm measured voxel size; field of view 360 mm; 4.03-min scan time) we performed an intraindividual study on 19 patients with the 1.5-T sequence as the standard of reference. Two radiologists analyzed the examinations in consensus with regard to tissue contrast (visualization of zonal anatomy of the uterus and/or delineation of pathologic findings) rated on a three-point scale (3 is 3.0 T better; 2 is 3.0 T equal; 1 is 3.0 T worse than 1.5 T). In addition, the signal difference between muscle and bone marrow was measured as a marker for tissue contrast. The analysis of the image quality comprised the level of the artifacts (rated on a five-point scale: 1 is no artifacts; 5 is nondiagnostic study), the visual signal-to-noise ratio (rated on a three-point scale) and detail delineation. Only minor artifacts were observed at both 1.5 and 3.0 T; the difference was not statistically significant. The visual signal-to-noise ratio and the delineation of image details were rated equal for 1.5 and 3.0 T. With regard to image contrast, both qualitative analysis as well as quantitative analysis revealed comparable image contrast for the 1.5- and 3.0-T protocols. Pathological findings were seen equally well with both field strengths. Clinically diagnostic pelvic studies of high image quality can be obtained using a 3.0-T scanner with our modified examination protocol. To fully exploit the capability of the high-field technique, and to point out potential advantages, further intraindividual studies are needed, with the adjustment of other imaging parameters to the high-field environment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15627183     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2589-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  17 in total

1.  NMR relaxation times in the human brain at 3.0 tesla.

Authors:  J P Wansapura; S K Holland; R S Dunn; W S Ball
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Hyperechoes.

Authors:  J Hennig; K Scheffler
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Application of magnetization transfer at 3.0 T in three-dimensional time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography of the intracranial arteries.

Authors:  Steven D Thomas; Osama Al-Kwifi; Derek J Emery; Alan H Wilman
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging--initial experience.

Authors:  Winfried A Willinek; Markus Born; Birgit Simon; Henriette J Tschampa; Carsten Krautmacher; Jurgen Gieseke; Horst Urbach; Hans J Textor; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Criteria for normalcy of cavities observed within the adult hippocampus: high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging study on a 3.0-T system.

Authors:  Yuichiro Yoneoka; Ingrid L Kwee; Yukihiko Fujii; Tsutomu Nakada
Journal:  J Neuroimaging       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Double inversion black-blood fast spin-echo imaging of the human heart: a comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T.

Authors:  Robert L Greenman; John E Shirosky; Robert V Mulkern; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Clinical experience on 3.0 T systems in Niigata, 1996 to 2002.

Authors:  Tsutomu Nakada
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 6.016

8.  Application of a birdcage coil at 3 Tesla to imaging of the human knee using MRI.

Authors:  D M Peterson; C E Carruthers; B L Wolverton; K Meister; M Werner; G R Duensing; J R Fitzsimmons
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Lung MRI at 3.0 T: a comparison of helical CT and high-field MRI in the detection of diffuse lung disease.

Authors:  G Lutterbey; J Gieseke; M von Falkenhausen; N Morakkabati; H Schild
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-11-23       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Preliminary report on in vivo coronary MRA at 3 Tesla in humans.

Authors:  Matthias Stuber; René M Botnar; Stefan E Fischer; Rolf Lamerichs; Jouke Smink; Paul Harvey; Warren J Manning
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.668

View more
  11 in total

1.  High spatial resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the supraaortic arteries using the quadrature body coil at 3.0T: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Winfried A Willinek; Thomas Bayer; Jürgen Gieseke; Marcus von Falkenhausen; Torsten Sommer; Romhild Hoogeveen; Kai Wilhelm; Horst Urbach; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-08-30       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution?

Authors:  Olivier Rouvière; Robert P Hartman; Denis Lyonnet
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-09-10       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Higher sensitivity in the detection of inflammatory brain lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis using high field MRI: an intraindividual comparison of 1.5 T with 3.0 T.

Authors:  Mike P Wattjes; Götz G Lutterbey; Michael Harzheim; Jürgen Gieseke; Frank Träber; Luisa Klotz; Thomas Klockgether; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-29       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Muskuloskeletal MR imaging at 3.0 T: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Nicolae Bolog; Daniel Nanz; Dominik Weishaupt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-16       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Enabling Technology for MRI-Guided Intervention.

Authors:  Farzad Sedaghat; Kemal Tuncali
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-02

6.  Body MRI artefacts: from image degradation to diagnostic utility.

Authors:  G Rescinito; C Sirlin; G Cittadini
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Seven-Tesla MRI of the female pelvis.

Authors:  Lale Umutlu; Oliver Kraff; Anja Fischer; Sonja Kinner; Stefan Maderwald; Kai Nassenstein; Felix Nensa; Johannes Grüneisen; Stephan Orzada; Andreas K Bitz; Michael Forsting; Mark E Ladd; Thomas C Lauenstein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-04       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  MRI of the pelvis at 3 T: very high spatial resolution with sensitivity encoding and flip-angle sweep technique in clinically acceptable scan time.

Authors:  Nuschin Morakkabati-Spitz; Jürgen Gieseke; Christiane Kuhl; Götz Lutterbey; Marcus von Falkenhausen; Frank Träber; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Oliver Zivanovic; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-10-14       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Dynamic pelvic floor MR imaging at 3 T in patients with clinical signs of urinary incontinence-preliminary results.

Authors:  Nuschin Morakkabati-Spitz; Jürgen Gieseke; Winfried A Willinek; Patrick J Bastian; Bettina Schmitz; Frank Träber; Ursula Jaeger; Stefan C Mueller; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-24       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Imaging of inflammatory lesions at 3.0 Tesla in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a comparison of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery with T2 turbo spin-echo.

Authors:  Mike P Wattjes; Götz G Lutterbey; Michael Harzheim; Jürgen Gieseke; Frank Träber; Luisa Klotz; Thomas Klockgether; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-04       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.