PURPOSE: To compare different techniques for positive contrast imaging of susceptibility markers with MRI for three-dimensional visualization. As several different techniques have been reported, the choice of the suitable method depends on its properties with regard to the amount of positive contrast and the desired background suppression, as well as other imaging constraints needed for a specific application. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six different positive contrast techniques are investigated for their ability to image at 3 Tesla a single susceptibility marker in vitro. The white marker method (WM), susceptibility gradient mapping (SGM), inversion recovery with on-resonant water suppression (IRON), frequency selective excitation (FSX), fast low flip-angle positive contrast SSFP (FLAPS), and iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) were implemented and investigated. RESULTS: The different methods were compared with respect to the volume of positive contrast, the product of volume and signal intensity, imaging time, and the level of background suppression. Quantitative results are provided, and strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches are discussed. CONCLUSION: The appropriate choice of positive contrast imaging technique depends on the desired level of background suppression, acquisition speed, and robustness against artifacts, for which in vitro comparative data are now available.
PURPOSE: To compare different techniques for positive contrast imaging of susceptibility markers with MRI for three-dimensional visualization. As several different techniques have been reported, the choice of the suitable method depends on its properties with regard to the amount of positive contrast and the desired background suppression, as well as other imaging constraints needed for a specific application. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six different positive contrast techniques are investigated for their ability to image at 3 Tesla a single susceptibility marker in vitro. The white marker method (WM), susceptibility gradient mapping (SGM), inversion recovery with on-resonant water suppression (IRON), frequency selective excitation (FSX), fast low flip-angle positive contrast SSFP (FLAPS), and iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) were implemented and investigated. RESULTS: The different methods were compared with respect to the volume of positive contrast, the product of volume and signal intensity, imaging time, and the level of background suppression. Quantitative results are provided, and strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches are discussed. CONCLUSION: The appropriate choice of positive contrast imaging technique depends on the desired level of background suppression, acquisition speed, and robustness against artifacts, for which in vitro comparative data are now available.
Authors: Charles H Cunningham; Takayasu Arai; Phillip C Yang; Michael V McConnell; John M Pauly; Steven M Conolly Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Venkatesh Mani; Karen C Briley-Saebo; Vitalii V Itskovich; Daniel D Samber; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: J R Reichenbach; R Venkatesan; D A Yablonskiy; M R Thompson; S Lai; E M Haacke Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1997 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Dara L Kraitchman; Mitsuaki Tatsumi; Wesley D Gilson; Takayoshi Ishimori; Dorota Kedziorek; Piotr Walczak; W Paul Segars; Hunter H Chen; Danielle Fritzges; Izlem Izbudak; Randell G Young; Michelle Marcelino; Mark F Pittenger; Meiyappan Solaiyappan; Raymond C Boston; Benjamin M W Tsui; Richard L Wahl; Jeff W M Bulte Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-08-29 Impact factor: 29.690