PURPOSE: To investigate the tolerance of MR examinations in children and adolescents performed in a 1.5 Tesla MR scanner with an expanded bore diameter. METHOD AND MATERIALS: 163 patients, ages 4 to 25, underwent MR examinations in a 1.5 Tesla MR scanner with an open design (MAGNETOM Espree, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), characterized by a compact length of 125 cm and an expanded 70 cm bore diameter. MR imaging of the brain was carried out in most cases (78.5 %), followed by examinations of the spinal canal (9.8 %), the extremities (9.2 %) and the neck (2.5 %). The patients were divided into four age groups and the success rate, motion artifacts and diagnostic quality of the MR examinations were assessed using a 3-grade scale. RESULTS: In 119 of 163 patients (73.0 %), MR examination was possible without any motion artifacts. With respect to the different age groups, 41.7 % of the 4 - 7-year-old children, 67.6 % of the 8 - 10-year-old children, 84.1 % of the 11 - 16-year-old children and 95.8 % of the patients older than 17 showed tolerance grade I without motion artifacts and excellent diagnostic image quality. In 39 of 163 children (23.9 %), the MR images showed moderate motion artifacts but had sufficient diagnostic quality. With regard to the different age groups, 52.8 % of the 4 - 7-year-old children, 26.5 % of the 8 - 10-year-old children, 15.9 % of the 11 - 16-year-old children and none of the patients older than 17 showed tolerance grade II with moderate motion artifacts and sufficient diagnostic image quality. In only 4 of 124 children < 10 years old and 1 child > 10 years old, the MR examination was not feasible and had to be repeated under sedation. CONCLUSION: Pediatric MR imaging using a 1.5 Tesla MR scanner with an open design can be conducted in children and adolescents with excellent acceptance. The failure rate of 3.0 % of cases for pediatric MR imaging is comparable to that of a conventional low-field open MR scanner.
PURPOSE: To investigate the tolerance of MR examinations in children and adolescents performed in a 1.5 Tesla MR scanner with an expanded bore diameter. METHOD AND MATERIALS: 163 patients, ages 4 to 25, underwent MR examinations in a 1.5 Tesla MR scanner with an open design (MAGNETOM Espree, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), characterized by a compact length of 125 cm and an expanded 70 cm bore diameter. MR imaging of the brain was carried out in most cases (78.5 %), followed by examinations of the spinal canal (9.8 %), the extremities (9.2 %) and the neck (2.5 %). The patients were divided into four age groups and the success rate, motion artifacts and diagnostic quality of the MR examinations were assessed using a 3-grade scale. RESULTS: In 119 of 163 patients (73.0 %), MR examination was possible without any motion artifacts. With respect to the different age groups, 41.7 % of the 4 - 7-year-old children, 67.6 % of the 8 - 10-year-old children, 84.1 % of the 11 - 16-year-old children and 95.8 % of the patients older than 17 showed tolerance grade I without motion artifacts and excellent diagnostic image quality. In 39 of 163 children (23.9 %), the MR images showed moderate motion artifacts but had sufficient diagnostic quality. With regard to the different age groups, 52.8 % of the 4 - 7-year-old children, 26.5 % of the 8 - 10-year-old children, 15.9 % of the 11 - 16-year-old children and none of the patients older than 17 showed tolerance grade II with moderate motion artifacts and sufficient diagnostic image quality. In only 4 of 124 children < 10 years old and 1 child > 10 years old, the MR examination was not feasible and had to be repeated under sedation. CONCLUSION: Pediatric MR imaging using a 1.5 Tesla MR scanner with an open design can be conducted in children and adolescents with excellent acceptance. The failure rate of 3.0 % of cases for pediatric MR imaging is comparable to that of a conventional low-field open MR scanner.
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