OBJECTIVE: To evaluate motion artifacts and patient acceptability of MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty six claustrophobic patients were enrolled prospectively, 34 of which had previous MR examinations in closed bore magnets. Anxiety and pain during MR examination in an open 1.0T scanner were evaluated by visual analogue scales and various tests. Influence of motion artifacts on image quality was evaluated by two radiologists independently using a five-point scale. Additionally, 36 non-claustrophobic patients delivered a reference value of a non-claustrophobic population for the visual analogue anxiety scale. RESULTS: Termination rate of MR imaging of highly claustrophobic patients decreased from 58.3% (n=21) in closed bore magnets to 8.3% (n=3) in the open scanner (p<or=0.001). Anxiety during MR examination was reduced from 87.1+/-16.7 (closed magnets) to 30.4+/-30.8 (open magnet) (p<or=0.001) on visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100. Influence of motion artifacts on image quality was very little (inter-rater reliability r=0.74; p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging using an open 1.0T scanner yielded a significantly decreased anxiety and subsequently an improved acceptability in claustrophobic patients compared with closed bore magnets. Motion artifacts did not influence image quality.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate motion artifacts and patient acceptability of MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty six claustrophobic patients were enrolled prospectively, 34 of which had previous MR examinations in closed bore magnets. Anxiety and pain during MR examination in an open 1.0T scanner were evaluated by visual analogue scales and various tests. Influence of motion artifacts on image quality was evaluated by two radiologists independently using a five-point scale. Additionally, 36 non-claustrophobicpatients delivered a reference value of a non-claustrophobic population for the visual analogue anxiety scale. RESULTS: Termination rate of MR imaging of highly claustrophobic patients decreased from 58.3% (n=21) in closed bore magnets to 8.3% (n=3) in the open scanner (p<or=0.001). Anxiety during MR examination was reduced from 87.1+/-16.7 (closed magnets) to 30.4+/-30.8 (open magnet) (p<or=0.001) on visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100. Influence of motion artifacts on image quality was very little (inter-rater reliability r=0.74; p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging using an open 1.0T scanner yielded a significantly decreased anxiety and subsequently an improved acceptability in claustrophobic patients compared with closed bore magnets. Motion artifacts did not influence image quality.
Authors: M H Maurer; N Schreiter; M de Bucourt; C Grieser; D M Renz; T Hartwig; B Hamm; F Streitparth Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J Bigley; P D Griffiths; A Prydderch; C A J Romanowski; L Miles; H Lidiard; N Hoggard Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Amanda M Adams; Roberta A Jong; Richard G Barr; Daniel E Lehrer; Etta D Pisano; W Phil Evans; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Glenna J Gabrielli; Ellen B Mendelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Judith Enders; Elke Zimmermann; Matthias Rief; Peter Martus; Randolf Klingebiel; Patrick Asbach; Christian Klessen; Gerd Diederichs; Thomas Bengner; Ulf Teichgräber; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Judith Enders; Elke Zimmermann; Matthias Rief; Peter Martus; Randolf Klingebiel; Patrick Asbach; Christian Klessen; Gerd Diederichs; Moritz Wagner; Ulf Teichgräber; Thomas Bengner; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-08-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jimmy C Lu; James C Nielsen; Layne Morowitz; Muzammil Musani; Maryam Ghadimi Mahani; Prachi P Agarwal; El-Sayed H Ibrahim; Adam L Dorfman Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-05-25 Impact factor: 5.364