AIM: To study the techniques of MR diffusion-weighed imaging (DWI) for normal rabbit liver. METHODS: After 15 normal New Zealand white rabbits and one New Zealand white rabbit implanted with VX-2 tumor were anesthetized with 3% soluble pentobarbitone, DWI was performed respectively for different b values, repetition times (TR) or thicknesses, when other parameters were the same and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed respectively, or with different field of views (FOV) or coil when other parameters were the same. The distinction between groups was analyzed by SPSS10.0 with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), quality index (QI) or signal-noise ratio (SNR). RESULTS: As b value increased, liver ADC, QI and SNR of DWI became smaller and simultaneously (F = 292.87, 156.1, 88.23, P<0.01). QI of DWI was high, when b value was 10, 50 or 100 respectively, but the distinction between them was insignificant; when b value was 800, QI and SNR of DWI were low. QI and SNR of DWI had no significant difference between TR = 4 000, 6 000 and 8 000. QI of DWI with 2 mm thickness was bigger than that with 5 mm thickness (t = 3.04, P<0.01), but SNR of DWI with 2 mm thickness was significantly smaller (t = -17.86, P<0.01). SNR of MRI with knee joint coil was obviously bigger than that with cranium coil (t = -5.77 (T1WI) or -4.02 (T2WI), P<0.01), but QI of MRI was smaller on the contrary (t = 7.10 (T1WI) or 3.97 (T2WI), P<0.01). When FOV was enlarged gradually, SNR of MRI increased (F = 85.81 (T1WI) or 221.96 (T2WI), P<0.01), but QI firstly increased, then decreased (F = 68.67 (T1WI) or 69.46 (T2WI), P<0.01) and QI of MRI was the biggest when FOV was 20 cm x 15 cm. CONCLUSION: The scanning technique is very important in DWI of rabbit liver and the overall quality of DWI with b (100 s/mm2), thickness (2 mm), cranium coils and FOV (20 cm x 15 cm) was best in our study, when other parameters were the same.
AIM: To study the techniques of MR diffusion-weighed imaging (DWI) for normal rabbit liver. METHODS: After 15 normal New Zealand white rabbits and one New Zealand white rabbit implanted with VX-2 tumor were anesthetized with 3% soluble pentobarbitone, DWI was performed respectively for different b values, repetition times (TR) or thicknesses, when other parameters were the same and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed respectively, or with different field of views (FOV) or coil when other parameters were the same. The distinction between groups was analyzed by SPSS10.0 with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), quality index (QI) or signal-noise ratio (SNR). RESULTS: As b value increased, liver ADC, QI and SNR of DWI became smaller and simultaneously (F = 292.87, 156.1, 88.23, P<0.01). QI of DWI was high, when b value was 10, 50 or 100 respectively, but the distinction between them was insignificant; when b value was 800, QI and SNR of DWI were low. QI and SNR of DWI had no significant difference between TR = 4 000, 6 000 and 8 000. QI of DWI with 2 mm thickness was bigger than that with 5 mm thickness (t = 3.04, P<0.01), but SNR of DWI with 2 mm thickness was significantly smaller (t = -17.86, P<0.01). SNR of MRI with knee joint coil was obviously bigger than that with cranium coil (t = -5.77 (T1WI) or -4.02 (T2WI), P<0.01), but QI of MRI was smaller on the contrary (t = 7.10 (T1WI) or 3.97 (T2WI), P<0.01). When FOV was enlarged gradually, SNR of MRI increased (F = 85.81 (T1WI) or 221.96 (T2WI), P<0.01), but QI firstly increased, then decreased (F = 68.67 (T1WI) or 69.46 (T2WI), P<0.01) and QI of MRI was the biggest when FOV was 20 cm x 15 cm. CONCLUSION: The scanning technique is very important in DWI of rabbit liver and the overall quality of DWI with b (100 s/mm2), thickness (2 mm), cranium coils and FOV (20 cm x 15 cm) was best in our study, when other parameters were the same.
Authors: Shahid M Hussain; Türkan Terkivatan; Pieter E Zondervan; Esmée Lanjouw; Sjoerd de Rave; Jan N M Ijzermans; Rob A de Man Journal: Radiographics Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Flemming Forsberg; Catherine W Piccoli; Ji-Bin Liu; Nandkumar M Rawool; Daniel A Merton; Donald G Mitchell; Barry B Goldberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ramon Vilana; Josep M Llovet; Luis Bianchi; Marcelo Sanchez; Mario Pagés; Margarita Sala; Rosa Gilabert; Carlos Nicolau; Angeles Garcia; Carmen Ayuso; Jordi Bruix; Concepció Bru Journal: J Clin Ultrasound Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 0.910
Authors: Thomas J Vogl; Wolfram Schwarz; Stefan Blume; Michael Pietsch; Kohkan Shamsi; Martina Franz; Hartmut Lobeck; Thomas Balzer; Kelly del Tredici; Peter Neuhaus; Roland Felix; Renate M Hammerstingl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-09-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hee Jin Park; So Yeon Lee; Myung Ho Rho; Eun Chul Chung; Mi Sung Kim; Heon Ju Kwon; In Young Youn Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 3.500