OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the relaxation times of musculoskeletal tissues at 3.0 T and 7.0 T, and to use these measurements to select appropriate parameters for musculoskeletal protocols at 7.0 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We measured the T₁ and T₂ relaxation times of cartilage, muscle, synovial fluid, bone marrow and subcutaneous fat at both 3.0 T and 7.0 T in the knees of five healthy volunteers. The T₁ relaxation times were measured using a spin-echo inversion recovery sequence with six inversion times. The T₂ relaxation times were measured using a spin-echo sequence with seven echo times. The accuracy of both the T₁ and T₂ measurement techniques was verified in phantoms at both magnetic field strengths. We used the measured relaxation times to help design 7.0 T musculoskeletal protocols that preserve the favorable contrast characteristics of our 3.0 T protocols, while achieving significantly higher resolution at higher SNR efficiency. RESULTS: The T₁ relaxation times in all tissues at 7.0 T were consistently higher than those measured at 3.0 T, while the T₂ relaxation times at 7.0 T were consistently lower than those measured at 3.0 T. The measured relaxation times were used to help develop high resolution 7.0 T protocols that had similar fluid-to-cartilage contrast to that of the standard clinical 3.0 T protocols for the following sequences: proton-density-weighted fast spin-echo (FSE), T₂-weighted FSE, and 3D-FSE-Cube. CONCLUSION: The T₁ and T₂ changes were within the expected ranges. Parameters for musculoskeletal protocols at 7.0 T can be optimized based on these values, yielding improved resolution in musculoskeletal imaging with similar contrast to that of standard 3.0 T clinical protocols.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the relaxation times of musculoskeletal tissues at 3.0 T and 7.0 T, and to use these measurements to select appropriate parameters for musculoskeletal protocols at 7.0 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We measured the T₁ and T₂ relaxation times of cartilage, muscle, synovial fluid, bone marrow and subcutaneous fat at both 3.0 T and 7.0 T in the knees of five healthy volunteers. The T₁ relaxation times were measured using a spin-echo inversion recovery sequence with six inversion times. The T₂ relaxation times were measured using a spin-echo sequence with seven echo times. The accuracy of both the T₁ and T₂ measurement techniques was verified in phantoms at both magnetic field strengths. We used the measured relaxation times to help design 7.0 T musculoskeletal protocols that preserve the favorable contrast characteristics of our 3.0 T protocols, while achieving significantly higher resolution at higher SNR efficiency. RESULTS: The T₁ relaxation times in all tissues at 7.0 T were consistently higher than those measured at 3.0 T, while the T₂ relaxation times at 7.0 T were consistently lower than those measured at 3.0 T. The measured relaxation times were used to help develop high resolution 7.0 T protocols that had similar fluid-to-cartilage contrast to that of the standard clinical 3.0 T protocols for the following sequences: proton-density-weighted fast spin-echo (FSE), T₂-weighted FSE, and 3D-FSE-Cube. CONCLUSION: The T₁ and T₂ changes were within the expected ranges. Parameters for musculoskeletal protocols at 7.0 T can be optimized based on these values, yielding improved resolution in musculoskeletal imaging with similar contrast to that of standard 3.0 T clinical protocols.
Authors: Garry E Gold; Eric Han; Jeff Stainsby; Graham Wright; Jean Brittain; Christopher Beaulieu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Goetz H Welsch; Sebastian Apprich; Stefan Zbyn; Tallal C Mamisch; Vladimir Mlynarik; Klaus Scheffler; Oliver Bieri; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-12-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S Kubilay Pakin; Conrado Cavalcanti; Renata La Rocca; Mark E Schweitzer; Ravinder R Regatte Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: J Thomas Vaughan; Carl J Snyder; Lance J DelaBarre; Patrick J Bolan; Jinfeng Tian; Lizann Bolinger; Gregor Adriany; Peter Andersen; John Strupp; Kamil Ugurbil Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Felix P Kuhn; Georg Spinner; Filippo Del Grande; Michael Wyss; Marco Piccirelli; Stefan Erni; Pascal Pfister; Michael Ho; Bert-Ram Sah; Lukas Filli; Dominik A Ettlin; Luigi M Gallo; Gustav Andreisek; Andrei Manoliu Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Akshay S Chaudhari; Bragi Sveinsson; Catherine J Moran; Emily J McWalter; Ethan M Johnson; Tao Zhang; Garry E Gold; Brian A Hargreaves Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kerryanne V Winters; Olivier Reynaud; Dmitry S Novikov; Els Fieremans; Sungheon Gene Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Noam Ben-Eliezer; Daniel K Sodickson; Timothy Shepherd; Graham C Wiggins; Kai Tobias Block Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Adam W Anz; Jos Edison; Thomas S Denney; Eric A Branch; Christopher R Walz; Kenny V Brock; Michael D Goodlett Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Hongjiang Wei; Eric Gibbs; Peida Zhao; Nian Wang; Gary P Cofer; Yuyao Zhang; G Allan Johnson; Chunlei Liu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Pelin A Ciris; Mukund Balasubramanian; Antonio L Damato; Ravi T Seethamraju; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Robert V Mulkern; Akila N Viswanathan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-03-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Maryam Aghighi; Ashok J Theruvath; Anuj Pareek; Laura L Pisani; Raphael Alford; Anne M Muehe; Tarsheen K Sethi; Samantha J Holdsworth; Florette K Hazard; Dita Gratzinger; Sandra Luna-Fineman; Ranjana Advani; Sheri L Spunt; Heike E Daldrup-Link Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 12.531