Literature DB >> 2370347

Field strength in neuro-MR imaging: a comparison of 0.5 T and 1.5 T.

C R Jack1, T H Berquist, G M Miller, G S Forbes, J E Gray, R L Morin, D M Ilstrup.   

Abstract

A study was undertaken comparing neurological magnetic resonance imaging at high (1.5 T) and mid (0.5 T) field strengths. Twenty-eight patients (20 head and 8 spine) from our routine case load volunteered to undergo two consecutive and identical MR studies on the two systems. The two MR systems were built by the same manufacturer and were equipped with essentially identical hardware and software. Individual patient studies were performed consecutively in adjacent MR suites, and pulse sequence parameters were replicated exactly at the two field strengths. One exception to this rule was that the second echo of the long TR sequence in the head was acquired with a narrow receiver bandwidth on the 0.5 T system. The resulting axial double echo long repetition time (TR) and sagittal short TR head images and sagittal short and double echo long TR spine images were graded by two blinded observers (senior staff neuroradiologists) on two levels. First, the images were graded for image quality, i.e., conspicuousness of artifacts and clarity in depiction of normal and pathologic anatomy. Second, diagnostic accuracy of MR was assessed relative to the clinical-pathologic diagnosis in each case. The image quality of the 1.5 T system was rated superior in both the head and spine for most specific items assessed. This observer preference for 1.5 T images did not, however, translate into greater diagnostic accuracy for the 1.5 T system in the head. Although the 1.5 T system did have a slight advantage in diagnostic accuracy in the spine, a significant difference was not found.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2370347     DOI: 10.1097/00004728-199007000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr        ISSN: 0363-8715            Impact factor:   1.826


  5 in total

1.  FLAIR imaging for multiple sclerosis: a comparative MR study at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla.

Authors:  Rainald Bachmann; Ralf Reilmann; Wolfram Schwindt; Harald Kugel; Walter Heindel; Stefan Krämer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-12-20       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Infratentorial brain maturation: a comparison of MRI at 0.5 and 1.5T.

Authors:  K Hittmair; J Kramer; T Rand; G Bernert; D Wimberger
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 3.  [Low-field magnetic resonance imaging : Just less expensive or completely different?]

Authors:  Jürgen Hennig
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  High-field open versus short-bore magnetic resonance imaging of the spine: a randomized controlled comparison of image quality.

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

5.  Assessing the utility of low resolution brain imaging: treatment of infant hydrocephalus.

Authors:  Joshua R Harper; Venkateswararao Cherukuri; Tom O'Reilly; Mingzhao Yu; Edith Mbabazi-Kabachelor; Ronald Mulando; Kevin N Sheth; Andrew G Webb; Benjamin C Warf; Abhaya V Kulkarni; Vishal Monga; Steven J Schiff
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 4.881

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.