RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare four different fat-suppressed T2-weighted sequences with different techniques with regard to image quality and lesion detection in upper abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive patients referred for upper abdominal MRI for the evaluation of various suspected pathologies were included in this study. Different T2-weighted sequences (free-breathing navigator-triggered turbo spin-echo [TSE], free-breathing navigator-triggered TSE with restore pulse (RP), breath-hold TSE with RP, and free-breathing navigator-triggered TSE with RP using the periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction technique [using BLADE, a Siemens implementation of this technique]) were used on all patients. All images were assessed independently by two radiologists. Assessments of motion artifacts; the edge sharpness of the liver, pancreas, and intrahepatic vessels; depictions of the intrahepatic vessels; and overall image quality were performed qualitatively. Quantitative analysis was performed by calculation of the signal-to-noise ratios for liver tissue and gallbladder as well as contrast-to-noise ratios of liver to spleen. RESULTS: Liver and gallbladder signal-to-noise ratios as well as liver to spleen contrast-to-noise ratios were significantly higher (P < .05) for the BLADE technique compared to all other sequences. In qualitative analysis, the severity of motion artifacts was significantly lower with T2-weighted free-breathing navigator-triggered BLADE sequences compared to other sequences (P < .01). The edge sharpness of the liver, pancreas, and intrahepatic vessels; depictions of the intrahepatic vessels; and overall image quality were significantly better with the BLADE sequence (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The T2-weighted free-breathing navigator-triggered TSE sequence with the BLADE technique is a promising approach for reducing motion artifacts and improving image quality in upper abdominal MRI scans.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare four different fat-suppressed T2-weighted sequences with different techniques with regard to image quality and lesion detection in upper abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive patients referred for upper abdominal MRI for the evaluation of various suspected pathologies were included in this study. Different T2-weighted sequences (free-breathing navigator-triggered turbo spin-echo [TSE], free-breathing navigator-triggered TSE with restore pulse (RP), breath-hold TSE with RP, and free-breathing navigator-triggered TSE with RP using the periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction technique [using BLADE, a Siemens implementation of this technique]) were used on all patients. All images were assessed independently by two radiologists. Assessments of motion artifacts; the edge sharpness of the liver, pancreas, and intrahepatic vessels; depictions of the intrahepatic vessels; and overall image quality were performed qualitatively. Quantitative analysis was performed by calculation of the signal-to-noise ratios for liver tissue and gallbladder as well as contrast-to-noise ratios of liver to spleen. RESULTS: Liver and gallbladder signal-to-noise ratios as well as liver to spleen contrast-to-noise ratios were significantly higher (P < .05) for the BLADE technique compared to all other sequences. In qualitative analysis, the severity of motion artifacts was significantly lower with T2-weighted free-breathing navigator-triggered BLADE sequences compared to other sequences (P < .01). The edge sharpness of the liver, pancreas, and intrahepatic vessels; depictions of the intrahepatic vessels; and overall image quality were significantly better with the BLADE sequence (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The T2-weighted free-breathing navigator-triggered TSE sequence with the BLADE technique is a promising approach for reducing motion artifacts and improving image quality in upper abdominal MRI scans.
Authors: Jong Hyuk Lee; Young Hun Choi; Jung Eun Cheon; So Mi Lee; Hyun Hae Cho; Su Mi Shin; Woo Sun Kim; In One Kim Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2015-01-24
Authors: A Agostini; M F Kircher; R Do; A Borgheresi; S Monti; A Giovagnoni; L Mannelli Journal: Semin Roentgenol Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 0.800
Authors: Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Reed F Busse; Martin P Smith; Scott B Reeder; Neil M Rofsky; Jean H Brittain; Charles A McKenzie Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: F Fraioli; G Serra; G Ciarlo; V Massaccesi; S Liberali; A Fiorelli; F Macrì; C Catalano Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Huyen Thanh Nguyen; Zarine Ketul Shah; Amir Mortazavi; Kamal S Pohar; Lai Wei; Debra Lyn Zynger; Michael Vinzenz Knopp Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.817