OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality of contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic 3D fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient-echo imaging with radial and conventional Cartesian k-space acquisition schemes in paediatric patients. METHODS: Seventy-three consecutive paediatric patients were imaged at 1.5 T with sequential contrast-enhanced T1-weighted Cartesian (VIBE) and radial gradient echo (GRE) acquisition schemes with matching parameters when possible. Cartesian VIBE was acquired as a breath-hold or as free breathing in patients who could not suspend respiration, followed by free-breathing radial GRE in all patients. Two paediatric radiologists blinded to the acquisition schemes evaluated multiple parameters of image quality on a five-point scale, with higher score indicating a more optimal examination. Lesion presence or absence, conspicuity and edge sharpness were also evaluated. Mixed-model analysis of variance was performed to compare radial GRE and Cartesian VIBE. RESULTS: Radial GRE had significantly (all P < 0.001) higher scores for overall image quality, hepatic edge sharpness, hepatic vessel clarity and respiratory motion robustness than Cartesian VIBE. More lesions were detected on radial GRE by both readers than on Cartesian VIBE, with significantly higher scores for lesion conspicuity and edge sharpness (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Radial GRE has better image quality and lesion conspicuity than conventional Cartesian VIBE in paediatric patients undergoing contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic MRI. KEY POINTS: • Numerous techniques are required to provide optimal MR images in paediatric patients. • Radial free-breathing contrast-enhanced acquisition demonstrated excellent image quality. • Image quality and lesion conspicuity were better with radial than Cartesian acquisition. • More lesions were detected on contrast-enhanced radial than on Cartesian acquisition. • Radial GRE can be used for performing abdominopelvic MRI in paediatric patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality of contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic 3D fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient-echo imaging with radial and conventional Cartesian k-space acquisition schemes in paediatric patients. METHODS: Seventy-three consecutive paediatric patients were imaged at 1.5 T with sequential contrast-enhanced T1-weighted Cartesian (VIBE) and radial gradient echo (GRE) acquisition schemes with matching parameters when possible. Cartesian VIBE was acquired as a breath-hold or as free breathing in patients who could not suspend respiration, followed by free-breathing radial GRE in all patients. Two paediatric radiologists blinded to the acquisition schemes evaluated multiple parameters of image quality on a five-point scale, with higher score indicating a more optimal examination. Lesion presence or absence, conspicuity and edge sharpness were also evaluated. Mixed-model analysis of variance was performed to compare radial GRE and Cartesian VIBE. RESULTS: Radial GRE had significantly (all P < 0.001) higher scores for overall image quality, hepatic edge sharpness, hepatic vessel clarity and respiratory motion robustness than Cartesian VIBE. More lesions were detected on radial GRE by both readers than on Cartesian VIBE, with significantly higher scores for lesion conspicuity and edge sharpness (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Radial GRE has better image quality and lesion conspicuity than conventional Cartesian VIBE in paediatric patients undergoing contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic MRI. KEY POINTS: • Numerous techniques are required to provide optimal MR images in paediatric patients. • Radial free-breathing contrast-enhanced acquisition demonstrated excellent image quality. • Image quality and lesion conspicuity were better with radial than Cartesian acquisition. • More lesions were detected on contrast-enhanced radial than on Cartesian acquisition. • Radial GRE can be used for performing abdominopelvic MRI in paediatric patients.
Authors: Phillip M Young; Anja C Brau; Yuji Iwadate; Shreyas Vasanawala; Bruce L Daniel; Anobel Tamrazi; Robert J Herfkens Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Tobias K Block; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Danny Kim; David J Mossa; James S Babb; Berthold Kiefer; Vivian S Lee Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Saraporn Bamrungchart; Engy M Tantaway; Esin C Midia; Mateus A Hernandes; Saowanee Srirattanapong; Brian M Dale; Richard C Semelka Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jakob Weiss; Jana Taron; Ahmed E Othman; Robert Grimm; Matthias Kuendel; Petros Martirosian; Christer Ruff; Christina Schraml; Konstantin Nikolaou; Mike Notohamiprodjo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mahdi Salmani Rahimi; Frank R Korosec; Kang Wang; James H Holmes; Utaroh Motosugi; Peter Bannas; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Utaroh Motosugi; Diego Hernando; Peter Bannas; James H Holmes; Kang Wang; Ann Shimakawa; Yuji Iwadate; Valentina Taviani; Jennifer L Rehm; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 4.813