OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare two different schemes for long-T (2) component suppression in ultrashort echo-time (UTE) imaging. The aim was to increase conspicuity of short-T (2) components accessible by the UTE technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A "dual-echo" and a magnetization-preparation approach for long-T (2) and fat suppression were implemented on clinical scanners. Both techniques were compared in 3D UTE exams on healthy volunteers regarding short-T (2) Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), long-T (2) suppression quality, and scan efficiency. A quantitative SNR evaluation was performed using ankle scans of six volunteers. T (2) suppression profiles were simulated for both approaches to facilitate interpretation of the observations. RESULTS: At 1.5 T, both techniques perform equally well in suppressing long-T (2) components and fat. Magnetization preparation requires more shimming effort due to the use of narrow-band pulses, while the "dual-echo" technique requires a post-processing step to form a subtraction image. For scans with a short repetition time (TR), the "dual-echo" approach is much faster than the magnetization preparation, which depends on slow T (1) recovery between preparation steps. The SNR comparison shows slightly higher short-T (2) SNR for the "dual-echo" approach. At 3.0 T, magnetization preparation becomes more challenging due to stronger off-resonance effects. CONCLUSION: Both techniques are well suited for long-T (2) suppression and offer comparable short-T (2) SNR. However, the "dual-echo" approach has strong advantages in terms of scan efficiency and off-resonance behavior.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare two different schemes for long-T (2) component suppression in ultrashort echo-time (UTE) imaging. The aim was to increase conspicuity of short-T (2) components accessible by the UTE technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A "dual-echo" and a magnetization-preparation approach for long-T (2) and fat suppression were implemented on clinical scanners. Both techniques were compared in 3D UTE exams on healthy volunteers regarding short-T (2) Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), long-T (2) suppression quality, and scan efficiency. A quantitative SNR evaluation was performed using ankle scans of six volunteers. T (2) suppression profiles were simulated for both approaches to facilitate interpretation of the observations. RESULTS: At 1.5 T, both techniques perform equally well in suppressing long-T (2) components and fat. Magnetization preparation requires more shimming effort due to the use of narrow-band pulses, while the "dual-echo" technique requires a post-processing step to form a subtraction image. For scans with a short repetition time (TR), the "dual-echo" approach is much faster than the magnetization preparation, which depends on slow T (1) recovery between preparation steps. The SNR comparison shows slightly higher short-T (2) SNR for the "dual-echo" approach. At 3.0 T, magnetization preparation becomes more challenging due to stronger off-resonance effects. CONCLUSION: Both techniques are well suited for long-T (2) suppression and offer comparable short-T (2) SNR. However, the "dual-echo" approach has strong advantages in terms of scan efficiency and off-resonance behavior.
Authors: Peder E Z Larson; Paul T Gurney; Krishna Nayak; Garry E Gold; John M Pauly; Dwight G Nishimura Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Karyn E Chappell; Nayna Patel; Peter D Gatehouse; Janice Main; Basant K Puri; Simon D Taylor-Robinson; Graeme M Bydder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ines L H Reichert; Michael Benjamin; Peter D Gatehouse; Karyn E Chappell; Joanne Holmes; Taigang He; Graeme M Bydder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Cheng Li; Jeremy F Magland; Hamidreza Saligheh Rad; Hee Kwon Song; Felix W Wehrli Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hyunyeol Lee; Xia Zhao; Hee Kwon Song; Rosaline Zhang; Scott P Bartlett; Felix W Wehrli Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 4.668