BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: DWI of the spinal cord is challenging because of its small size and artifacts associated with the most commonly used clinical imaging method, SS-EPI. We evaluated the performance of rFOV spinal cord DWI and compared it with the routine fFOV SS-EPI in a clinical population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six clinical patients underwent 1.5T MR imaging examination that included rFOV SS-EPI DWI of the cervical spinal cord as well as 2 comparison diffusion sequences: fFOV SS-EPI DWI normalized for either image readout time (low-resolution fFOV) or spatial resolution (high-resolution fFOV). ADC maps were created and compared between the methods by using single-factor analysis of variance. Two neuroradiologists blinded to sequence type rated the 3 DWI methods, based on susceptibility artifacts, perceived spatial resolution, signal intensity-to-noise ratio, anatomic detail, and clinical utility. RESULTS: ADC values for the rFOV and both fFOV sequences were not statistically different (rFOV: 1.01 ± 0.18 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; low-resolution fFOV: 1.12 ± 0.22 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; high-resolution fFOV: 1.10 ± 0.21 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; F = 2.747, P > .05). The neuroradiologist reviewers rated the rFOV diffusion images superior in terms of all assessed measures (P < 0.0001). Particular improvements were noted in patients with metal hardware, degenerative disease, or both. CONCLUSIONS: rFOV DWI of the spinal cord overcomes many of the problems associated with conventional fFOV SS-EPI and is feasible in a clinical population. From a clinical standpoint, images were deemed superior to those created by using standard fFOV methods.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: DWI of the spinal cord is challenging because of its small size and artifacts associated with the most commonly used clinical imaging method, SS-EPI. We evaluated the performance of rFOV spinal cord DWI and compared it with the routine fFOV SS-EPI in a clinical population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six clinical patients underwent 1.5T MR imaging examination that included rFOV SS-EPI DWI of the cervical spinal cord as well as 2 comparison diffusion sequences: fFOV SS-EPI DWI normalized for either image readout time (low-resolution fFOV) or spatial resolution (high-resolution fFOV). ADC maps were created and compared between the methods by using single-factor analysis of variance. Two neuroradiologists blinded to sequence type rated the 3 DWI methods, based on susceptibility artifacts, perceived spatial resolution, signal intensity-to-noise ratio, anatomic detail, and clinical utility. RESULTS: ADC values for the rFOV and both fFOV sequences were not statistically different (rFOV: 1.01 ± 0.18 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; low-resolution fFOV: 1.12 ± 0.22 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; high-resolution fFOV: 1.10 ± 0.21 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; F = 2.747, P > .05). The neuroradiologist reviewers rated the rFOV diffusion images superior in terms of all assessed measures (P < 0.0001). Particular improvements were noted in patients with metal hardware, degenerative disease, or both. CONCLUSIONS: rFOV DWI of the spinal cord overcomes many of the problems associated with conventional fFOV SS-EPI and is feasible in a clinical population. From a clinical standpoint, images were deemed superior to those created by using standard fFOV methods.
Authors: R Bammer; R Stollberger; M Augustin; J Simbrunner; H Offenbacher; H Kooijman; S Ropele; P Kapeller; P Wach; F Ebner; F Fazekas Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marek Kubicki; Stephan E Maier; Carl-Frederik Westin; Hatsuho Mamata; Hal Ersner-Hershfield; Raul Estepar; Ron Kikinis; Ferenc A Jolesz; Robert W McCarley; Martha E Shenton Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: B P Murphy; G P Zientara; P S Huppi; S E Maier; P D Barnes; F A Jolesz; J J Volpe Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: S E Maier; H Gudbjartsson; S Patz; L Hsu; K O Lovblad; R R Edelman; S Warach; F A Jolesz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: James Rafferty; Lance Farr; Tim James; David Chase; John Heinrich; Michael Brady Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: J Hodel; P Besson; O Outteryck; H Zéphir; D Ducreux; A Monnet; D Chéchin; M Zins; M Rodallec; J P Pruvo; P Vermersch; X Leclerc Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Neil G Simon; Jared Narvid; Tene Cage; Suchandrima Banerjee; Jeffrey W Ralph; John W Engstrom; Michel Kliot; Cynthia Chin Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Maarten W Barentsz; Valentina Taviani; Jung M Chang; Debra M Ikeda; Kanae K Miyake; Suchandrima Banerjee; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Brian A Hargreaves; Bruce L Daniel Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 4.813