OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3.0 T detects more brain lesions in acute optic neuritis (ON) than MRI at 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with acute ON were scanned at both field-strengths using fast-fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), proton density and T2-weighted turbo spin echo, and T1-weighted spin echo after contrast. In addition, magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo (MPRAGE) was obtained after contrast at 3.0 T. Lesion number and volumes were assessed by an observer blind to patient identity and field strength. RESULTS: Scans at 3.0 T showed a significantly increase in number of lesions detected on FLAIR images (P = 0.002) relative to scanning at 1.5 T. MPRAGE proved to be suitable for detecting enhancing lesions in ON. CONCLUSION: The MRI protocol at 3.0 T was more sensitive to hyperintense brain lesions in ON than the standard MRI protocol at 1.5 T.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3.0 T detects more brain lesions in acute optic neuritis (ON) than MRI at 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with acute ON were scanned at both field-strengths using fast-fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), proton density and T2-weighted turbo spin echo, and T1-weighted spin echo after contrast. In addition, magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo (MPRAGE) was obtained after contrast at 3.0 T. Lesion number and volumes were assessed by an observer blind to patient identity and field strength. RESULTS: Scans at 3.0 T showed a significantly increase in number of lesions detected on FLAIR images (P = 0.002) relative to scanning at 1.5 T. MPRAGE proved to be suitable for detecting enhancing lesions in ON. CONCLUSION: The MRI protocol at 3.0 T was more sensitive to hyperintense brain lesions in ON than the standard MRI protocol at 1.5 T.
Authors: Henrik Horwitz; Matilda Degn; Signe Modvig; Henrik B W Larsson; Benedikte Wanscher; Jette L Frederiksen Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui Terry Tao; Johanna Simpson; Andrew C Stanfield; Harriet Johnston; Jehill Parikh; Natalie A Royle; Janet De Wilde; Mark E Bastin; Nick Weir; Andrew Farrall; Maria C Valdes Hernandez Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mike P Wattjes; Michael Harzheim; Götz G Lutterbey; Ferri Hojati; Birgit Simon; Stephan Schmidt; Hans H Schild; Frederik Barkhof Journal: J Neurol Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: J Khalifa; F Tensaouti; L Chaltiel; J-A Lotterie; I Catalaa; M P Sunyach; D Ibarrola; G Noël; G Truc; P Walker; N Magné; M Charissoux; S Ken; P Peran; I Berry; E Cohen-Jonathan Moyal; A Laprie Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Maria A Rocca; Olga Ciccarelli; Nicola De Stefano; Nikos Evangelou; Ludwig Kappos; Alex Rovira; Jaume Sastre-Garriga; Mar Tintorè; Jette L Frederiksen; Claudio Gasperini; Jacqueline Palace; Daniel S Reich; Brenda Banwell; Xavier Montalban; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Marloes H J Hagens; Jessica Burggraaff; Iris D Kilsdonk; Marlieke L de Vos; Niamh Cawley; Emilia Sbardella; Michaela Andelova; Michael Amann; Johanna M Lieb; Patrizia Pantano; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Joep Killestein; Celia Oreja-Guevara; Olga Ciccarelli; Claudio Gasperini; Carsten Lukas; Mike P Wattjes; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 9.910