OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate Periodically Rotated Overlapping ParallEL Lines with Enhanced Reconstruction (PROPELLER; BLADE) data acquisition in comparison with standard k-space sampling techniques for axial and sagittal brain imaging at 3 T regarding imaging artifacts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients who gave consent were included in a prospective comparison of standard and PROPELLER (BLADE) k-space sampling techniques. All examinations were performed at 3 T with comparison of standard T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) to PROPELLER T2-weighted FLAIR in the axial image orientation and standard T1-weighted gradient echo to PROPELLER T1-weighted FLAIR in the sagittal image orientation. Imaging protocols were matched for spatial resolution, with data evaluation performed by 2 experienced neuroradiologists. Image data were compared regarding various image artifacts and overall image quality. Reader agreement was assessed by Cohen's kappa statistics. RESULTS: PROPELLER T2-weighted axial data acquisition showed significantly less pulsation and Gibb's artifacts than the standard T2-weighted scan. Even without motion correction, the frequency of ghosting (motion) artifacts was substantially lower in the PROPELLER T2-weighted data and readers concordantly (kappa = 1) rated PROPELLER as better than or equal to the standard T2-weighted scan in the majority of cases (95%; P < 0.0001). In the comparison of sagittal T1-weighted data sets, readers showed only fair agreement (kappa = 0.24) and noted consistent wrap artifacts in PROPELLER T1-weighted FLAIR. CONCLUSION: PROPELLER (BLADE) brain magnetic resonance imaging is also applicable at 3 T. In addition to minimizing motion artifacts, the PROPELLER acquisition scheme reduces other magnetic resonance artifacts that would otherwise degrade scan quality.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate Periodically Rotated Overlapping ParallEL Lines with Enhanced Reconstruction (PROPELLER; BLADE) data acquisition in comparison with standard k-space sampling techniques for axial and sagittal brain imaging at 3 T regarding imaging artifacts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients who gave consent were included in a prospective comparison of standard and PROPELLER (BLADE) k-space sampling techniques. All examinations were performed at 3 T with comparison of standard T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) to PROPELLER T2-weighted FLAIR in the axial image orientation and standard T1-weighted gradient echo to PROPELLER T1-weighted FLAIR in the sagittal image orientation. Imaging protocols were matched for spatial resolution, with data evaluation performed by 2 experienced neuroradiologists. Image data were compared regarding various image artifacts and overall image quality. Reader agreement was assessed by Cohen's kappa statistics. RESULTS: PROPELLER T2-weighted axial data acquisition showed significantly less pulsation and Gibb's artifacts than the standard T2-weighted scan. Even without motion correction, the frequency of ghosting (motion) artifacts was substantially lower in the PROPELLER T2-weighted data and readers concordantly (kappa = 1) rated PROPELLER as better than or equal to the standard T2-weighted scan in the majority of cases (95%; P < 0.0001). In the comparison of sagittal T1-weighted data sets, readers showed only fair agreement (kappa = 0.24) and noted consistent wrap artifacts in PROPELLER T1-weighted FLAIR. CONCLUSION: PROPELLER (BLADE) brain magnetic resonance imaging is also applicable at 3 T. In addition to minimizing motion artifacts, the PROPELLER acquisition scheme reduces other magnetic resonance artifacts that would otherwise degrade scan quality.
Authors: E Nyberg; G S Sandhu; J Jesberger; K A Blackham; D P Hsu; M A Griswold; J L Sunshine Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Philipp Riffel; Raghuram K Rao; Stefan Haneder; Mathias Meyer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2013-09-28
Authors: Michael Meier-Schroers; Christian Marx; Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Karsten Wolter; Jürgen Gieseke; Wolfgang Block; Alois Martin Sprinkart; Frank Traeber; Winfried Willinek; Hans Heinz Schild; Guido Matthias Kukuk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mustafa M Almuqbel; Gareth Leeper; David N Palmer; Nadia L Mitchell; Katharina N Russell; Ross J Keenan; Tracy R Melzer Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: A Talia Vertinsky; Erika Rubesova; Michael V Krasnokutsky; Sabine Bammer; Jarrett Rosenberg; Allan White; Patrick D Barnes; Roland Bammer Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2009-08-11
Authors: C Fellner; C Menzel; F A Fellner; C Ginthoer; N Zorger; A Schreyer; E M Jung; S Feuerbach; T Finkenzeller Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-11-26 Impact factor: 3.825