PURPOSE: To improve three-dimensional (3D) volume-selective turbo spin-echo (TSE) carotid wall imaging by the addition of a novel body surface swallowing detection device. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 3D volume-selective TSE sequence was used to image the carotid artery. A novel carbon-fiber motion device, positioned over the laryngeal prominence, was used to detect swallowing movement. An electrical output generated by coil movement was used to detect motion, and an algorithm was programmed to reject data acquired during swallowing and for a short period afterwards. Images were acquired with and without the algorithm and scored on a scale of 0-5 by four independent blinded observers according to the clarity of the vessel wall, e.g., 0 = poor image quality and 5 = excellent quality images with little or no artifact. RESULTS: The scans with the rejection algorithm on were scored higher than the scans without the algorithm. The comparison of scores with the algorithm on vs. the algorithm off were as follows: mean +/- standard deviation (SD) = 3.76 +/- 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.27-4.25 vs. 2.64 +/- 0.25, 95% CI = 2.15-3.13; with good interobserver correlation (Kendall's W score 0.77). CONCLUSION: Image quality can be improved by the algorithm during acquisition. This can be achieved by a novel, anatomically positioned superficial device. This may help in prolonged 3D scans where a single movement can corrupt the entire acquisition.
PURPOSE: To improve three-dimensional (3D) volume-selective turbo spin-echo (TSE) carotid wall imaging by the addition of a novel body surface swallowing detection device. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 3D volume-selective TSE sequence was used to image the carotid artery. A novel carbon-fiber motion device, positioned over the laryngeal prominence, was used to detect swallowing movement. An electrical output generated by coil movement was used to detect motion, and an algorithm was programmed to reject data acquired during swallowing and for a short period afterwards. Images were acquired with and without the algorithm and scored on a scale of 0-5 by four independent blinded observers according to the clarity of the vessel wall, e.g., 0 = poor image quality and 5 = excellent quality images with little or no artifact. RESULTS: The scans with the rejection algorithm on were scored higher than the scans without the algorithm. The comparison of scores with the algorithm on vs. the algorithm off were as follows: mean +/- standard deviation (SD) = 3.76 +/- 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.27-4.25 vs. 2.64 +/- 0.25, 95% CI = 2.15-3.13; with good interobserver correlation (Kendall's W score 0.77). CONCLUSION: Image quality can be improved by the algorithm during acquisition. This can be achieved by a novel, anatomically positioned superficial device. This may help in prolonged 3D scans where a single movement can corrupt the entire acquisition.
Authors: H Haraldsson; J R Leach; E I Kao; A G Wright; S G Ammanuel; R S Khangura; M K Ballweber; C T Chin; V N Shah; K Meisel; D A Saloner; M R Amans Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Robert Frost; Luca Biasiolli; Linqing Li; Katherine Hurst; Mohammad Alkhalil; Robin P Choudhury; Matthew D Robson; Aaron T Hess; Peter Jezzard Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.668