RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare low-field with high-field intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in respect to setup, workflow, and efficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 750 patients were investigated either with a 0.2 T (March 1996-July 2001) or a 1.5 T (April 2002-August 2004) MRI system adapted for intraoperative use. RESULTS: With the low-field setup, 330 patients were examined in 65 months; with the high-field setup, 420 patients were examined in 29 months, which is a 2.8-fold increase in cases per month (14.5 versus 5.1) reflecting improved ease of use. Concerning intraoperative workflow, the time for preparation to start intraoperative imaging decreased fivefold (2 minutes instead of 10 minutes); navigation was applied more often with 57% versus 51% (240/420 versus 167/330), whereas functional data were integrated in 35% versus 39% (84/240 versus 65/167). Application of navigation updates was doubled (22% versus 11%; 53/240 versus 18/167). Image acquisition time was reduced by a factor of two, allowing a more detailed imaging protocol, whereas the image quality is clearly improved in the high-field setup, where there was no difference between the standard preoperative image quality compared with the intraoperative quality. This contributed to an increased detection of tumor remnants and extended resections in pituitary (36% versus 29%; 47/129 versus 17/59) and glioma surgery (41% versus 26%; 38/93 versus 28/106). CONCLUSION: Compared with the low-field setup, the high-field setup results not only in clearly superior image quality and increased imaging armamentarium, contributing to increased rates of detected tumor remnants, but also in a distinct improvement of intraoperative workflow. Furthermore, intraoperative high-field MRI offers various modalities beyond standard anatomic imaging, such as magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion tensor imaging, and functional MRI.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare low-field with high-field intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in respect to setup, workflow, and efficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 750 patients were investigated either with a 0.2 T (March 1996-July 2001) or a 1.5 T (April 2002-August 2004) MRI system adapted for intraoperative use. RESULTS: With the low-field setup, 330 patients were examined in 65 months; with the high-field setup, 420 patients were examined in 29 months, which is a 2.8-fold increase in cases per month (14.5 versus 5.1) reflecting improved ease of use. Concerning intraoperative workflow, the time for preparation to start intraoperative imaging decreased fivefold (2 minutes instead of 10 minutes); navigation was applied more often with 57% versus 51% (240/420 versus 167/330), whereas functional data were integrated in 35% versus 39% (84/240 versus 65/167). Application of navigation updates was doubled (22% versus 11%; 53/240 versus 18/167). Image acquisition time was reduced by a factor of two, allowing a more detailed imaging protocol, whereas the image quality is clearly improved in the high-field setup, where there was no difference between the standard preoperative image quality compared with the intraoperative quality. This contributed to an increased detection of tumor remnants and extended resections in pituitary (36% versus 29%; 47/129 versus 17/59) and glioma surgery (41% versus 26%; 38/93 versus 28/106). CONCLUSION: Compared with the low-field setup, the high-field setup results not only in clearly superior image quality and increased imaging armamentarium, contributing to increased rates of detected tumor remnants, but also in a distinct improvement of intraoperative workflow. Furthermore, intraoperative high-field MRI offers various modalities beyond standard anatomic imaging, such as magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion tensor imaging, and functional MRI.
Authors: Peter T Sylvester; John A Evans; Gregory J Zipfel; Richard A Chole; Ravindra Uppaluri; Bruce H Haughey; Anne E Getz; Julie Silverstein; Keith M Rich; Albert H Kim; Ralph G Dacey; Michael R Chicoine Journal: Pituitary Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: Zafer Orkun Toktas; Baran Yilmaz; Murat Şakir Ekşi; Lei Wang; Akin Akakin; Yasin Yener; Murat Konakcı; Emre Ayan; Turker Kılıc; Deniz Konya; Yang D Teng Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Miriam H A Bauer; Daniela Kuhnt; Sebastiano Barbieri; Jan Klein; Andreas Becker; Bernd Freisleben; Horst K Hahn; Christopher Nimsky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 3.240