PURPOSE: The measurement of velocities based on phase contrast MRI can be subject to different phase offset errors which can affect the accuracy of velocity data. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of these inaccuracies and to evaluate different correction strategies on three-dimensional visualization. METHODS: Phase contrast MRI was performed on a 3 T system (Siemens Trio) for in vitro (curved/straight tube models; venc: 0.3 m/s) and in vivo (aorta/intracranial vasculature; venc: 1.5/0.4 m/s) data. For comparison of the impact of different magnetic field gradient designs, in vitro data was additionally acquired on a wide bore 1.5 T system (Siemens Espree). Different correction methods were applied to correct for eddy currents, Maxwell terms, and gradient field inhomogeneities. RESULTS: The application of phase offset correction methods lead to an improvement of three-dimensional particle trace visualization and count. The most pronounced differences were found for in vivo/in vitro data (68%/82% more particle traces) acquired with a low venc (0.3 m/s/0.4 m/s, respectively). In vivo data acquired with high venc (1.5 m/s) showed noticeable but only minor improvement. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the correction of phase offset errors can be important for a more reliable visualization of particle traces but is strongly dependent on the velocity sensitivity, object geometry, and gradient coil design.
PURPOSE: The measurement of velocities based on phase contrast MRI can be subject to different phase offset errors which can affect the accuracy of velocity data. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of these inaccuracies and to evaluate different correction strategies on three-dimensional visualization. METHODS: Phase contrast MRI was performed on a 3 T system (Siemens Trio) for in vitro (curved/straight tube models; venc: 0.3 m/s) and in vivo (aorta/intracranial vasculature; venc: 1.5/0.4 m/s) data. For comparison of the impact of different magnetic field gradient designs, in vitro data was additionally acquired on a wide bore 1.5 T system (Siemens Espree). Different correction methods were applied to correct for eddy currents, Maxwell terms, and gradient field inhomogeneities. RESULTS: The application of phase offset correction methods lead to an improvement of three-dimensional particle trace visualization and count. The most pronounced differences were found for in vivo/in vitro data (68%/82% more particle traces) acquired with a low venc (0.3 m/s/0.4 m/s, respectively). In vivo data acquired with high venc (1.5 m/s) showed noticeable but only minor improvement. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the correction of phase offset errors can be important for a more reliable visualization of particle traces but is strongly dependent on the velocity sensitivity, object geometry, and gradient coil design.
Authors: Jan-Willem Lankhaar; Mark B M Hofman; J Tim Marcus; Jaco J M Zwanenburg; Theo J C Faes; Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jelena Bock; Alex Frydrychowicz; Aurélien F Stalder; Thorsten A Bley; Hans Burkhardt; Jürgen Hennig; Michael Markl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: P G Walker; G B Cranney; M B Scheidegger; G Waseleski; G M Pohost; A P Yoganathan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1993 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Zoran Stankovic; Zoltan Csatari; Peter Deibert; Wulf Euringer; Philipp Blanke; Wolfgang Kreisel; Zahra Abdullah Zadeh; Felix Kallfass; Mathias Langer; Michael Markl Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S A Ansari; S Schnell; T Carroll; P Vakil; M C Hurley; C Wu; J Carr; B R Bendok; H Batjer; M Markl Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Loic Boussel; Vitaliy Rayz; Alastair Martin; Gabriel Acevedo-Bolton; Michael T Lawton; Randall Higashida; Wade S Smith; William L Young; David Saloner Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Haben Berhane; Michael Scott; Mohammed Elbaz; Kelly Jarvis; Patrick McCarthy; James Carr; Chris Malaisrie; Ryan Avery; Alex J Barker; Joshua D Robinson; Cynthia K Rigsby; Michael Markl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: M Markl; S Schnell; C Wu; E Bollache; K Jarvis; A J Barker; J D Robinson; C K Rigsby Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Maria Aristova; Alireza Vali; Sameer A Ansari; Ali Shaibani; Tord D Alden; Michael C Hurley; Babak S Jahromi; Matthew B Potts; Michael Markl; Susanne Schnell Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Julia Busch; S Johanna Vannesjo; Christoph Barmet; Klaas P Pruessmann; Sebastian Kozerke Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 5.364