Literature DB >> 16604322

Is the body-coil at 3 Tesla feasible for the MRI evaluation of the painful knee? A comparative study.

G Lutterbey1, K Behrends, M V Falkenhausen, M P Wattjes, N Morakkabati, J Gieseke, H Schild.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the in-built body coil of the 3.0-Tesla (T) scanner with a dedicated surface coil of a 1.5 T system regarding knee imaging. We performed an intraindividual prospective clinical trial on 17 patients with knee pain using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 1.5 and 3.0 T systems equipped with identical gradient systems. Proton-density-weighted turbo spin echo sequences with the same spatial resolution and comparable contrast parameters were used. A quantitative measurement of signal to noise ratio (SNR), relative contrast (RC) and contrast to noise ratio (CNR) between muscle and bone marrow was performed, followed by a qualitative assessment of anatomic/pathologic structures and the extent of artefacts. At 3.0 T, 30 lesions (91%) compared to 33 lesions at 1.5 T were detected. The SNR/CNR/RC were moderately reduced at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T (muscle 42 vs 47 and bone 83 vs 112/46 vs 69/0.33 vs 0.43). Motion artefacts from the pulsating popliteal artery were significantly increased at 3.0 T. A visible and measurable signal loss occurred at 3.0 T using the built-in body coil compared with the dedicated 1.5 T knee coil, but nearly all clinically important information could be obtained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16604322     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0219-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  12 in total

1.  Effect of field strength on MR images: comparison of the same subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T.

Authors:  A J Maubon; J M Ferru; V Berger; M C Soulage; M DeGraef; P Aubas; P Coupeau; E Dumont; J P Rouanet
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.333

2.  Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast.

Authors:  Garry E Gold; Eric Han; Jeff Stainsby; Graham Wright; Jean Brittain; Christopher Beaulieu
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Determining the longitudinal relaxation time (T1) of blood at 3.0 Tesla.

Authors:  Hanzhang Lu; Chekesha Clingman; Xavier Golay; Peter C M van Zijl
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Inflammatory and traumatic lesions of the knee and ankle: comparison of 0.23 T and 2 T MRI.

Authors:  A Mundinger; M Ioannidou; E Dinkel; A Beck; H Friedburg; G Sigmund
Journal:  Radiat Med       Date:  1990 Nov-Dec

5.  Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience.

Authors:  Garry E Gold; Brian Suh; Anne Sawyer-Glover; Christopher Beaulieu
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Musculoskeletal MR imaging at 4 T and at 1.5 T: comparison of relaxation times and image contrast.

Authors:  S H Duewell; T L Ceckler; K Ong; H Wen; F A Jaffer; S A Chesnick; R S Balaban
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Application of a birdcage coil at 3 Tesla to imaging of the human knee using MRI.

Authors:  D M Peterson; C E Carruthers; B L Wolverton; K Meister; M Werner; G R Duensing; J R Fitzsimmons
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.668

8.  MR imaging of articular cartilage at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of SPGR and SSFP sequences.

Authors:  P R Kornaat; S B Reeder; S Koo; J H Brittain; H Yu; T P Andriacchi; G E Gold
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 6.576

9.  High resolution MRI of small joints: impact of spatial resolution on diagnostic performance and SNR.

Authors:  T M Link; S Majumdar; C Peterfy; H E Daldrup; M Uffmann; C Dowling; L Steinbach; H K Genant
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.546

10.  [Value of various MR sequences using 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla in analyzing cartilaginous defects of the patella in an animal model].

Authors:  R J Schröder; F Fischbach; F N Unterhauser; A Weiler; R Felix; H Bruhn
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2004-11
View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparative study of imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T of the knee.

Authors:  Scott Wong; Lynne Steinbach; Jian Zhao; Christoph Stehling; C Benjamin Ma; Thomas M Link
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Diagnosis of temporomandibular dysfunction syndrome--image quality at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Martina Schmid-Schwap; Wolfgang Drahanowsky; Margit Bristela; Michael Kundi; Eva Piehslinger; Soraya Robinson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Pilot study of rapid MR pancreas screening for patients with BRCA mutation.

Authors:  Giuseppe Corrias; Mitchell C Raeside; Andrea Agostini; Sandra Huicochea-Castellanos; David Aramburu-Nunez; Ramesh Paudyal; Amita Shukla-Dave; Olga Smelianskaia; Marinela Capanu; Junting Zheng; Maggie Fung; David P Kelsen; Debra A Mangino; Mark E Robson; Deborah J Goldfrank; Jean Carter; Peter J Allen; Bettina Conti; Serena Monti; Richard K G Do; Lorenzo Mannelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 5.315

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.