Literature DB >> 16530632

Abdominal MR imaging at 3T.

Elmar M Merkle1, Brian M Dale, Erik K Paulson.   

Abstract

Body MR imaging at 3T is in its infancy, and should improve substantially over the next several years. Radiologists need to be aware of several limitations that are based on the laws of physics: Overall, the gain in SNR at 3T will be less than twofold (without protocol alteration) compared with a standard 1.5T MR system because of the increase in T'I'1 at ultra high field. Typically, the gain in SNR is greater in T2-weighted sequences than in TI-weighted sequences, because longer TRs allow for a more complete recovery of the longitudinal magnetization, and T2 is independent of Bo. Thus, for example, patients who are referred for an MR cholangiography may benefit from an ultrahigh-field MR examination. Chemical shift artifacts of the first kind are twice as large in ultrahigh-field MR imaging compared with standard 1.5T MR imaging. Conversely, chemical shift artifacts of the second kind do not increase in size, although the timing is altered. The increased difference in resonant frequency between water and fat at 3T also is advantageous because it allows for a better separation of the fat and water peak during MR spectroscopy, and allows better or faster fat suppression using chemical shift techniques, such as fat saturation or water excitation. Susceptibility artifacts are approximately twice as large by volume on 3T MR imaging. Although patients who are referred for a "colon" study may be challenging at ultrahigh field, the search for "gas" (eg, free air or pneumobilia) should be easier. Patients with metal implants should undergo an MR examination at 3T only if the metal-containing device specifically has been proved to be MR safe at this field strength. Usually, standing wave and conductivity effects are not seen in body imaging at a field strength of 1.5T. At 3T, these artifacts are most pronounced in pregnant women in the sec-ond and third trimester, because of the large amount of conductive amniotic fluid and the increased size of the abdomen. Therefore, fetal MR imaging generally should not be performed at 3T because of these artifacts and the increased safety concerns. The same holds true for patients with a large amount of ascites, who also are not well suited for an ultrahigh-field MR examination. Except as noted above, most patients can undergo an abdominal MR imaging study at 3T with a reasonable outcome in terms of image quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16530632     DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2005.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am        ISSN: 1064-9689            Impact factor:   2.266


  19 in total

1.  Four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4D-MRI) using image-based respiratory surrogate: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Jing Cai; Zheng Chang; Zhiheng Wang; William Paul Segars; Fang-Fang Yin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Renal imaging at 7 Tesla: preliminary results.

Authors:  Lale Umutlu; Stephan Orzada; Sonja Kinner; Stefan Maderwald; Irina Brote; Andreas K Bitz; Oliver Kraff; Susanne C Ladd; Gerald Antoch; Mark E Ladd; Harald H Quick; Thomas C Lauenstein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  MR-lymphangiography at 3.0 T--a feasibility study.

Authors:  Mike Notohamiprodjo; Ruediger G H Baumeister; Tobias F Jakobs; Kerstin U Bauner; Holger F Boehm; Annie Horng; Maximilian F Reiser; Christian Glaser; Karin A Herrmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Newly developed surface coil for endoluminal MRI, depiction of pig gastric wall layers and vascular architecture in ex vivo study.

Authors:  Yoshinori Morita; Hiromu Kutsumi; Hayato Yoshinaka; Yuichiro Matsuoka; Kagayaki Kuroda; Masakazu Gotanda; Naomi Sekino; Etsuko Kumamoto; Masaru Yoshida; Hideto Inokuchi; Takeshi Azuma
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 7.527

5.  Quantitative and morphologic change associated with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Comparison of 3.0T MRI to external measures.

Authors:  Gregory C Gardner; Joshua P Nickerson; Richard Watts; Lee Nelson; Kim L Dittus; Patricia J O'Brien
Journal:  Lymphat Res Biol       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 2.589

6.  High-resolution 3D-GRE imaging of the abdomen using controlled aliasing acceleration technique - a feasibility study.

Authors:  Mamdoh AlObaidy; Miguel Ramalho; Kiran K R Busireddy; Baodong Liu; Lauren M Burke; Ersan Altun; Brian M Dale; Richard C Semelka
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Fetal MRI at 3T-ready for routine use?

Authors:  Christian Weisstanner; Gerlinde M Gruber; Peter C Brugger; Christan Mitter; Mariana C Diogo; Gregor Kasprian; Daniela Prayer
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Hepatic fat assessment using advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Yong Pang; Baiying Yu; Xiaoliang Zhang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2012-09

9.  Detection of hepatic metastases by superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced MR imaging: prospective comparison between 1.5-T and 3.0-T images in the same patients.

Authors:  Keitaro Sofue; Masakatsu Tsurusaki; Mototaka Miyake; Aine Sakurada; Yasuaki Arai; Kazuro Sugimura
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-04-29       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced computed tomography with histopathological examinations for the identification of hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter phase III study.

Authors:  Masakatsu Tsurusaki; Keitaro Sofue; Hiroyoshi Isoda; Masahiro Okada; Kazuhiro Kitajima; Takamichi Murakami
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 7.527

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.