PURPOSE: To describe our first experiences with a recently introduced 3T system for T2-weighted isotropic 3D whole-spine imaging. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging of the whole spine was performed by implementing an isotropic 3D fast spin-echo sequence with variable flip-angle refocusing pulses at 3T and 1.5T. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was compared on both systems in eight subjects. RESULTS: Mean values for SNR were significantly higher at 3T (346+214) for 1.0 mm voxel size compared to 1.5T (202 +/- 41), but showed considerably higher variability at 3T. At 3T, measurements with 0.9 mm voxel size were possible with similar SNR as with 1.0 mm voxel size at 1.5T. CONCLUSION: High-resolution 3D imaging of the whole spine is feasible at 3T with an increased SNR compared to 1.5T. Signal gain at 3T can be used to further increase spatial resolution. Pronounced interpatient variability of SNR at 3T may be a result of inhomogeneous RF deposition due to dielectric effects.
PURPOSE: To describe our first experiences with a recently introduced 3T system for T2-weighted isotropic 3D whole-spine imaging. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging of the whole spine was performed by implementing an isotropic 3D fast spin-echo sequence with variable flip-angle refocusing pulses at 3T and 1.5T. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was compared on both systems in eight subjects. RESULTS: Mean values for SNR were significantly higher at 3T (346+214) for 1.0 mm voxel size compared to 1.5T (202 +/- 41), but showed considerably higher variability at 3T. At 3T, measurements with 0.9 mm voxel size were possible with similar SNR as with 1.0 mm voxel size at 1.5T. CONCLUSION: High-resolution 3D imaging of the whole spine is feasible at 3T with an increased SNR compared to 1.5T. Signal gain at 3T can be used to further increase spatial resolution. Pronounced interpatient variability of SNR at 3T may be a result of inhomogeneous RF deposition due to dielectric effects.
Authors: Oliver Ristow; Lynne Steinbach; Gregory Sabo; Roland Krug; Markus Huber; Isabel Rauscher; Ben Ma; Thomas M Link Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M P Lichy; C Mueller-Horvat; V Jellus; W Horger; M Horger; C Pfannenberg; B Kiefer; C D Claussen; H P Schlemmer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-05-29 Impact factor: 5.315