BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Image quality and diagnostic reliability of T2-weighted MR images of the cervical spine are often impaired by several kinds of artifacts, even in cooperative patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate if BLADE sequences might solve these problems in a routine patient collective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TSE and BLADE sequences were compared in 60 patients for T2-weighted sagittal imaging of the cervical spine. Image sharpness, motion artifacts, truncation artifacts, metal artifacts, CSF flow phenomena, contrast of anatomic structures (vertebral body/disk, spinal cord/CSF), and diagnostic reliability of spinal cord depiction were evaluated by 2 independent readers. Another 2 readers selected the sequence they would prefer for diagnostic purposes. Statistical evaluations were performed by using the Wilcoxon and the chi(2) test; differences with P < .05 were regarded as statistically significant. RESULTS: BLADE was significantly superior to TSE regarding image sharpness, image contrast, diagnostic reliability of spinal cord depiction, motion artifacts, CSF flow phenomena, and truncation artifacts; for metal artifacts no significant improvements were found. In 50 of 60 patients, BLADE was preferred for diagnostic purposes, and TSE was favored in 3 patients. The number of examinations that were nondiagnostic due to impaired spinal cord depiction was reduced from 12 in TSE to 3 in BLADE, and nondiagnostic examinations due to overall motion artifacts were reduced from 2 to 1. CONCLUSIONS: Using the BLADE sequence for sagittal T2-weighted imaging of the cervical spine proved to be advantageous to reduce various kinds of artifacts.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Image quality and diagnostic reliability of T2-weighted MR images of the cervical spine are often impaired by several kinds of artifacts, even in cooperative patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate if BLADE sequences might solve these problems in a routine patient collective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TSE and BLADE sequences were compared in 60 patients for T2-weighted sagittal imaging of the cervical spine. Image sharpness, motion artifacts, truncation artifacts, metal artifacts, CSF flow phenomena, contrast of anatomic structures (vertebral body/disk, spinal cord/CSF), and diagnostic reliability of spinal cord depiction were evaluated by 2 independent readers. Another 2 readers selected the sequence they would prefer for diagnostic purposes. Statistical evaluations were performed by using the Wilcoxon and the chi(2) test; differences with P < .05 were regarded as statistically significant. RESULTS: BLADE was significantly superior to TSE regarding image sharpness, image contrast, diagnostic reliability of spinal cord depiction, motion artifacts, CSF flow phenomena, and truncation artifacts; for metal artifacts no significant improvements were found. In 50 of 60 patients, BLADE was preferred for diagnostic purposes, and TSE was favored in 3 patients. The number of examinations that were nondiagnostic due to impaired spinal cord depiction was reduced from 12 in TSE to 3 in BLADE, and nondiagnostic examinations due to overall motion artifacts were reduced from 2 to 1. CONCLUSIONS: Using the BLADE sequence for sagittal T2-weighted imaging of the cervical spine proved to be advantageous to reduce various kinds of artifacts.
Authors: Henrik J Michaely; Harald Kramer; Sabine Weckbach; Olaf Dietrich; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Olaf Dietrich; José G Raya; Scott B Reeder; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: E Lavdas; M Vlychou; E Zaloni; K Vassiou; A Tsagkalis; Z Dailiana; I Fezoulidis Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Andreas Ragoschke-Schumm; Peter Schmidt; Julia Schumm; Georg Reimann; Hans-Joachim Mentzel; Werner A Kaiser; Thomas E Mayer Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Florent Eggenschwiler; Kieran Robert O'Brien; Daniel Gallichan; Rolf Gruetter; José Pedro Marques Journal: MAGMA Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: G Zaharchuk; E U Saritas; J B Andre; C T Chin; J Rosenberg; T J Brosnan; A Shankaranarayan; D G Nishimura; N J Fischbein Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Domiziana Santucci; Sheila S Lee; Heidi Hartman; Shyama Walgampaya; Mamdoh AlObaidy; Miguel Ramalho; Brian M Dale; Richard C Semelka Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2017 Jul-Aug