OBJECTIVE: To investigate the performance of an open MRI system at its conceptual limits by examining excessively obese patients who otherwise could not receive adequate imaging examinations. METHODS: Twenty-six excessively obese patients (BMI ≥ 35, average age 46) where CT, standard MR or ultrasound examinations were not possible or not conclusive were referred to an open MRI system at 1.0 Tesla. Image quality was measured by SNR and CNR with the integrated body coil for obese patients and optimal body coils for a regular weight control group (average BMI 23, average age 30). MRI findings were evaluated by a diagnostic impact matrix. RESULTS: SNR and CNR were generally lower in obese patients when the integrated body coil was used compared to the normal weight group with ideal body coils e.g.: For cerebral imaging T2W TSE (<5% for white matter, ca. 30% for grey matter) and T1W SE (ca. 15% for white matter, <5% for grey matter), for spinal imaging T2W TSE (ca. 35% for disc and vertebral body) and T1W SE (about 2% for disc, ca. 10% for vertebral body). Relevant new diagnoses impacting patient's therapy were identified in 30% (8/26), the particular medical question of the referring physician could be ruled out as possible reason for the medical condition in 53% (14/26). CONCLUSION: In excessively obese patients where CT, standard MR or ultrasound examination is not possible or not conclusive open MRI system have great potential in diagnostic evaluation, offering lower but sufficient image quality to impact therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the performance of an open MRI system at its conceptual limits by examining excessively obesepatients who otherwise could not receive adequate imaging examinations. METHODS: Twenty-six excessively obesepatients (BMI ≥ 35, average age 46) where CT, standard MR or ultrasound examinations were not possible or not conclusive were referred to an open MRI system at 1.0 Tesla. Image quality was measured by SNR and CNR with the integrated body coil for obesepatients and optimal body coils for a regular weight control group (average BMI 23, average age 30). MRI findings were evaluated by a diagnostic impact matrix. RESULTS: SNR and CNR were generally lower in obesepatients when the integrated body coil was used compared to the normal weight group with ideal body coils e.g.: For cerebral imaging T2W TSE (<5% for white matter, ca. 30% for grey matter) and T1W SE (ca. 15% for white matter, <5% for grey matter), for spinal imaging T2W TSE (ca. 35% for disc and vertebral body) and T1W SE (about 2% for disc, ca. 10% for vertebral body). Relevant new diagnoses impacting patient's therapy were identified in 30% (8/26), the particular medical question of the referring physician could be ruled out as possible reason for the medical condition in 53% (14/26). CONCLUSION: In excessively obesepatients where CT, standard MR or ultrasound examination is not possible or not conclusive open MRI system have great potential in diagnostic evaluation, offering lower but sufficient image quality to impact therapy.
Authors: Benjamin S Halpern; Magnus Dahlbom; Martin A Auerbach; Christiaan Schiepers; Barbara J Fueger; Wolfgang A Weber; Daniel H S Silverman; Osman Ratib; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Abel Romero-Corral; Victor M Montori; Virend K Somers; Josef Korinek; Randal J Thomas; Thomas G Allison; Farouk Mookadam; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-08-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anna Peeters; Jan J Barendregt; Frans Willekens; Johan P Mackenbach; Abdullah Al Mamun; Luc Bonneux Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Pieter H M van Baal; Johan J Polder; G Ardine de Wit; Rudolf T Hoogenveen; Talitha L Feenstra; Hendriek C Boshuizen; Peter M Engelfriet; Werner B F Brouwer Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Francesco Secchi; Carmela Asteria; Caterina B Monti; Alexis Elias Malavazos; Davide Capra; Marco Alì; Cecilia L A Giassi; Simona Francesconi; Sara Basilico; Alessandro Giovanelli; Lelio Morricone; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2022-05-24
Authors: Kai Lin; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Xiaoming Bi; Ying Liu; Debiao Li; James C Carr Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-02-03 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jimmy C Lu; James C Nielsen; Layne Morowitz; Muzammil Musani; Maryam Ghadimi Mahani; Prachi P Agarwal; El-Sayed H Ibrahim; Adam L Dorfman Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-05-25 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Judith Enders; Matthias Rief; Elke Zimmermann; Patrick Asbach; Gerd Diederichs; Christoph Wetz; Eberhard Siebert; Moritz Wagner; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katharina Fischbach; Otrud Kosiek; Björn Friebe; Christian Wybranski; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Alexander Schmeisser; Jan Smid; Jens Ricke; Maciej Pech Journal: Pol J Radiol Date: 2017-09-15
Authors: Philippe Garteiser; Laurent Castera; Muriel Coupaye; Sabrina Doblas; Daniela Calabrese; Marco Dioguardi Burgio; Séverine Ledoux; Pierre Bedossa; Marina Esposito-Farèse; Simon Msika; Bernard E Van Beers; Pauline Jouët Journal: JHEP Rep Date: 2021-09-30