RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We studied preparatory strategies for high-resolution human eye in vivo imaging with commercially available magnets and coils. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We imaged normal volunteers on 1.5T systems by Philips, GE, and Siemens, using commercial approximately 9 cm temporomandibular joint receive coils. Subjects fixated the nonimaged eye on a target. We compared signal (S) to tissue noise (Nt) and system noise (Ns) between images acquired with the imaged eye: 1) open, 2) held closed, 3) taped closed, and 4) taped closed with overlying water-soaked gauze. We standardized technique 4 to compare studies between manufacturers using T1-weighted parameters (repetition time/echo time/flip angle/number of signal averages = 400 ms/10-17 ms/90 degrees /4-6, in-plane resolution approximately 250 x 250 microm2; 2-3 mm slices, image time = 4.3-5.2 min). We obtained similar images of an enucleated human eye to estimate in vivo effects of microsaccades and ocular pulsations. RESULTS: Measurements of S/Nt and S/Ns gave surprising results of Nt < Ns in some instances. Ns/Nt was congruent with 1, varying approximately 20%, when the eye was taped shut and covered with water-soaked gauze. T1-weighted spin echo sequences, using technique 4, produced high-quality images with good S/Nt on all systems. Images from the three manufacturers were comparable when parameters were normalized for pulse repetition time, echo time, number of signal averages, bandwidth in Hz/pixel, and reconstruction matrix. Images of the enucleated eye produced S/Nt ratios that were comparable to in vivo images in some structures. CONCLUSIONS: Our best preparatory technique produced images with in-plane resolution of approximately 250 mum in 4-5 minutes with three commercial 1.5 T systems. The in vivo S/Nt was comparable to in vitro values in most solid tissues but decreased in most fluid compartments.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We studied preparatory strategies for high-resolution human eye in vivo imaging with commercially available magnets and coils. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We imaged normal volunteers on 1.5T systems by Philips, GE, and Siemens, using commercial approximately 9 cm temporomandibular joint receive coils. Subjects fixated the nonimaged eye on a target. We compared signal (S) to tissue noise (Nt) and system noise (Ns) between images acquired with the imaged eye: 1) open, 2) held closed, 3) taped closed, and 4) taped closed with overlying water-soaked gauze. We standardized technique 4 to compare studies between manufacturers using T1-weighted parameters (repetition time/echo time/flip angle/number of signal averages = 400 ms/10-17 ms/90 degrees /4-6, in-plane resolution approximately 250 x 250 microm2; 2-3 mm slices, image time = 4.3-5.2 min). We obtained similar images of an enucleated human eye to estimate in vivo effects of microsaccades and ocular pulsations. RESULTS: Measurements of S/Nt and S/Ns gave surprising results of Nt < Ns in some instances. Ns/Nt was congruent with 1, varying approximately 20%, when the eye was taped shut and covered with water-soaked gauze. T1-weighted spin echo sequences, using technique 4, produced high-quality images with good S/Nt on all systems. Images from the three manufacturers were comparable when parameters were normalized for pulse repetition time, echo time, number of signal averages, bandwidth in Hz/pixel, and reconstruction matrix. Images of the enucleated eye produced S/Nt ratios that were comparable to in vivo images in some structures. CONCLUSIONS: Our best preparatory technique produced images with in-plane resolution of approximately 250 mum in 4-5 minutes with three commercial 1.5 T systems. The in vivo S/Nt was comparable to in vitro values in most solid tissues but decreased in most fluid compartments.
Authors: John B Christoforidis; Peter A Wassenaar; Greg A Christoforidis; Vincent Y Ho; Michael V Knopp; Petra M Schmalbrock Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2012-09-16 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Arun D Singh; Sean M Platt; Lisa Lystad; Mark Lowe; Sehong Oh; Stephen E Jones; Yahya Alzahrani; Thomas Plesec Journal: Ocul Oncol Pathol Date: 2016-01-27
Authors: Małgorzata Solnik; Natalia Paduszyńska; Anna M Czarnecka; Kamil J Synoradzki; Yacoub A Yousef; Tomasz Chorągiewicz; Robert Rejdak; Mario Damiano Toro; Sandrine Zweifel; Katarzyna Dyndor; Michał Fiedorowicz Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Kathryn Richdale; Peter Wassenaar; Katharine Teal Bluestein; Amir Abduljalil; John A Christoforidis; Titus Lanz; Michael V Knopp; Petra Schmalbrock Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Pietro Valerio Foti; Mario Travali; Renato Farina; Stefano Palmucci; Corrado Spatola; Luigi Raffaele; Vincenzo Salamone; Rosario Caltabiano; Giuseppe Broggi; Lidia Puzzo; Andrea Russo; Michele Reibaldi; Antonio Longo; Paolo Vigneri; Teresio Avitabile; Giovani Carlo Ettorre; Antonio Basile Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2021-06-03
Authors: Michael C Y Tang; Myriam G Jaarsma-Coes; Teresa A Ferreira; Lorna Zwirs-Grech Fonk; Marina Marinkovic; Gregorius P M Luyten; Jan-Willem M Beenakker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 5.119