INTRODUCTION: Parallel imaging techniques such as GRAPPA have been introduced to optimize image quality and acquisition time. For spinal imaging in a clinical setting no data exist on the equivalency of conventional and parallel imaging techniques. The purpose of this study was to determine whether T1- and T2-weighted GRAPPA sequences are equivalent to conventional sequences for the evaluation of degenerative lumbar spine disease in terms of image quality and artefacts. METHODS: In patients with clinically suspected degenerative lumbar spine disease two neuroradiologists independently compared sagittal GRAPPA (acceleration factor 2, time reduction approximately 50%) and non-GRAPPA images (25 patients) and transverse GRAPPA (acceleration factor 2, time reduction approximately 50%) and non-GRAPPA images (23 lumbar segments in six patients). Comparative analyses included the minimal diameter of the spinal canal, disc abnormalities, foraminal stenosis, facet joint degeneration, lateral recess, nerve root compression and osteochondrotic vertebral and endplate changes. Image inhomogeneity was evaluated by comparing the nonuniformity in the two techniques. Image quality was assessed by grading the delineation of pathoanatomical structures. Motion and aliasing artefacts were classified from grade 1 (severe) to grade 5 (absent). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between GRAPPA and non-accelerated MRI in the evaluation of degenerative lumbar spine disease (P>0.05), and there was no difference in the delineation of pathoanatomical structures. For inhomogeneity there was a trend in favour of the conventional sequences. No significant artefacts were observed with either technique. CONCLUSION: The GRAPPA technique can be used effectively to reduce scanning time in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease while preserving image quality.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Parallel imaging techniques such as GRAPPA have been introduced to optimize image quality and acquisition time. For spinal imaging in a clinical setting no data exist on the equivalency of conventional and parallel imaging techniques. The purpose of this study was to determine whether T1- and T2-weighted GRAPPA sequences are equivalent to conventional sequences for the evaluation of degenerative lumbar spine disease in terms of image quality and artefacts. METHODS: In patients with clinically suspected degenerative lumbar spine disease two neuroradiologists independently compared sagittal GRAPPA (acceleration factor 2, time reduction approximately 50%) and non-GRAPPA images (25 patients) and transverse GRAPPA (acceleration factor 2, time reduction approximately 50%) and non-GRAPPA images (23 lumbar segments in six patients). Comparative analyses included the minimal diameter of the spinal canal, disc abnormalities, foraminal stenosis, facet joint degeneration, lateral recess, nerve root compression and osteochondrotic vertebral and endplate changes. Image inhomogeneity was evaluated by comparing the nonuniformity in the two techniques. Image quality was assessed by grading the delineation of pathoanatomical structures. Motion and aliasing artefacts were classified from grade 1 (severe) to grade 5 (absent). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between GRAPPA and non-accelerated MRI in the evaluation of degenerative lumbar spine disease (P>0.05), and there was no difference in the delineation of pathoanatomical structures. For inhomogeneity there was a trend in favour of the conventional sequences. No significant artefacts were observed with either technique. CONCLUSION: The GRAPPA technique can be used effectively to reduce scanning time in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease while preserving image quality.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Stefan Skare; Rexford D Newbould; David B Clayton; Gregory W Albers; Scott Nagle; Roland Bammer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: J S Ross; P Ruggieri; J Tkach; N Obuchowski; J Dillinger; T J Masaryk; M T Modic Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1993 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Stephan Meckel; Ralf Mekle; Christian Taschner; Sven Haller; Klaus Scheffler; Ernst-Wilhelm Radue; Stephan G Wetzel Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2006-03-11 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: L Gerigk; T Bostel; A Hegewald; C Thomé; J Scharf; C Groden; E Neumaier-Probst Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: J Fruehwald-Pallamar; P Szomolanyi; N Fakhrai; A Lunzer; M Weber; M M Thurnher; M Pallamar; S Trattnig; D Prayer; I M Noebauer-Huhmann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 3.825