OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate soft palate MRI at 1.5 and 3 T with high temporal resolution on clinical scanners. METHODS: Six volunteers were imaged while speaking, using both four real-time steady-state free-precession (SSFP) sequences at 3 T and four balanced SSFP (bSSFP) at 1.5 T. Temporal resolution was 9-20 frames s(-1) (fps), spatial resolution 1.6 × 1.6 × 10.0-2.7 × 2.7 × 10.0 mm(3). Simultaneous audio was recorded. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), palate thickness and image quality score (1-4, non-diagnostic-excellent) were evaluated. RESULTS: SNR was higher at 3 T than 1.5 T in the relaxed palate (nasal breathing position) and reduced in the elevated palate at 3 T, but not 1.5 T. Image quality was not significantly different between field strengths or sequences (p=NS). At 3 T, 40% acquisitions scored 2 and 56% scored 3. Most 1.5 T acquisitions scored 1 (19%) or 4 (46%). Image quality was more dependent on subject or field than sequence. SNR in static images was highest with 1.9 × 1.9 × 10.0 mm(3) resolution (10 fps) and measured palate thickness was similar (p=NS) to that at the highest resolution (1.6 × 1.6 × 10.0 mm(3)). SNR in intensity-time plots through the soft palate was highest with 2.7 × 2.7 × 10.0 mm(3) resolution (20 fps). CONCLUSIONS: At 3 T, SSFP images are of a reliable quality, but 1.5 T bSSFP images are often better. For geometric measurements, temporal should be traded for spatial resolution (1.9 × 1.9 × 10.0 mm(3), 10 fps). For assessment of motion, temporal should be prioritised over spatial resolution (2.7 × 2.7 × 10.0 mm(3), 20 fps). Advances in knowledge Diagnostic quality real-time soft palate MRI is possible using clinical scanners and optimised protocols have been developed. 3 T SSFP imaging is reliable, but 1.5 T bSSFP often produces better images.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate soft palate MRI at 1.5 and 3 T with high temporal resolution on clinical scanners. METHODS: Six volunteers were imaged while speaking, using both four real-time steady-state free-precession (SSFP) sequences at 3 T and four balanced SSFP (bSSFP) at 1.5 T. Temporal resolution was 9-20 frames s(-1) (fps), spatial resolution 1.6 × 1.6 × 10.0-2.7 × 2.7 × 10.0 mm(3). Simultaneous audio was recorded. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), palate thickness and image quality score (1-4, non-diagnostic-excellent) were evaluated. RESULTS: SNR was higher at 3 T than 1.5 T in the relaxed palate (nasal breathing position) and reduced in the elevated palate at 3 T, but not 1.5 T. Image quality was not significantly different between field strengths or sequences (p=NS). At 3 T, 40% acquisitions scored 2 and 56% scored 3. Most 1.5 T acquisitions scored 1 (19%) or 4 (46%). Image quality was more dependent on subject or field than sequence. SNR in static images was highest with 1.9 × 1.9 × 10.0 mm(3) resolution (10 fps) and measured palate thickness was similar (p=NS) to that at the highest resolution (1.6 × 1.6 × 10.0 mm(3)). SNR in intensity-time plots through the soft palate was highest with 2.7 × 2.7 × 10.0 mm(3) resolution (20 fps). CONCLUSIONS: At 3 T, SSFP images are of a reliable quality, but 1.5 T bSSFP images are often better. For geometric measurements, temporal should be traded for spatial resolution (1.9 × 1.9 × 10.0 mm(3), 10 fps). For assessment of motion, temporal should be prioritised over spatial resolution (2.7 × 2.7 × 10.0 mm(3), 20 fps). Advances in knowledge Diagnostic quality real-time soft palate MRI is possible using clinical scanners and optimised protocols have been developed. 3 T SSFP imaging is reliable, but 1.5 T bSSFP often produces better images.
Authors: Bénédicte M A Delattre; Robin M Heidemann; Lindsey A Crowe; Jean-Paul Vallée; Jean-Noël Hyacinthe Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: C T Arendt; K Eichler; M G Mack; D Leithner; S Zhang; K T Block; Y Berdan; R Sader; J L Wichmann; T Gruber-Rouh; T J Vogl; M C Hoelter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andreia C Freitas; Marzena Wylezinska; Malcolm J Birch; Steffen E Petersen; Marc E Miquel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 3.240