PURPOSE: To assess lesion detection and artifact size reduction of a multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination, slice encoding for metal artifact correction (MAVRIC-SEMAC) hybrid sequence (MAVRIC-SL) compared to standard sequences at 1.5T and 3T in porcine knee specimens with metal hardware. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial cartilage and bone lesions of defined size were created in the proximity of titanium and steel screws with 2.5 mm diameter in 12 porcine knee specimens and were imaged at 1.5T and 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MAVRIC-SL PD and short T1 inversion recovery (STIR), standard fast spin echo (FSE) T2 PD, and STIR and fat-saturated T2 FSE sequences. Three radiologists blinded to the lesion locations assessed lesion detection rates on randomized images for each sequence using receiver operating characteristic (ROC). Artifact length and width were measured. RESULTS: Metal artifact sizes were largest in the presence of steel screws at 3T (FSE T2 FS: 28.7 cm(2) ) and 1.5T (16.03 cm(2) ). MAVRIC-SL PD and STIR reduced artifact sizes at both 3T (1.43 cm(2) ; 2.46 cm(2) ) and 1.5T (1.16 cm(2) ; 1.59 cm(2) ) compared to FS T2 FSE sequences (27.57 cm(2) ; 13.20 cm(2) ). At 3T, ROC-derived AUC values using MAVRIC-SL sequences were significantly higher compared to standard sequences (MAVRIC-PD: 0.87, versus FSE-T2 -FS: 0.73 [P = 0.025]; MAVRIC-STIR: 0.9 vs. T2 -STIR: 0.78 [P = 0.001] and vs. FSE-T2 -FS: 0.73 [P = 0.026]). Similar values were observed at 1.5T. Comparison of 3T and 1.5T showed no significant differences (MAVRIC-SL PD: P = 0.382; MAVRIC-SL STIR: P = 0.071). CONCLUSION: MAVRIC-SL sequences provided superior lesion detection and reduced metal artifact size at both 1.5T and 3T compared to conventionally used FSE sequences. No significant disadvantage was found comparing MAVRIC-SL at 3T and 1.5T, although metal artifacts at 3T were larger. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;41:1291-1299.
PURPOSE: To assess lesion detection and artifact size reduction of a multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination, slice encoding for metal artifact correction (MAVRIC-SEMAC) hybrid sequence (MAVRIC-SL) compared to standard sequences at 1.5T and 3T in porcine knee specimens with metal hardware. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial cartilage and bone lesions of defined size were created in the proximity of titanium and steel screws with 2.5 mm diameter in 12 porcine knee specimens and were imaged at 1.5T and 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MAVRIC-SL PD and short T1 inversion recovery (STIR), standard fast spin echo (FSE) T2 PD, and STIR and fat-saturated T2 FSE sequences. Three radiologists blinded to the lesion locations assessed lesion detection rates on randomized images for each sequence using receiver operating characteristic (ROC). Artifact length and width were measured. RESULTS:Metal artifact sizes were largest in the presence of steel screws at 3T (FSE T2 FS: 28.7 cm(2) ) and 1.5T (16.03 cm(2) ). MAVRIC-SL PD and STIR reduced artifact sizes at both 3T (1.43 cm(2) ; 2.46 cm(2) ) and 1.5T (1.16 cm(2) ; 1.59 cm(2) ) compared to FS T2 FSE sequences (27.57 cm(2) ; 13.20 cm(2) ). At 3T, ROC-derived AUC values using MAVRIC-SL sequences were significantly higher compared to standard sequences (MAVRIC-PD: 0.87, versus FSE-T2 -FS: 0.73 [P = 0.025]; MAVRIC-STIR: 0.9 vs. T2 -STIR: 0.78 [P = 0.001] and vs. FSE-T2 -FS: 0.73 [P = 0.026]). Similar values were observed at 1.5T. Comparison of 3T and 1.5T showed no significant differences (MAVRIC-SL PD: P = 0.382; MAVRIC-SL STIR: P = 0.071). CONCLUSION: MAVRIC-SL sequences provided superior lesion detection and reduced metal artifact size at both 1.5T and 3T compared to conventionally used FSE sequences. No significant disadvantage was found comparing MAVRIC-SL at 3T and 1.5T, although metal artifacts at 3T were larger. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;41:1291-1299.
Authors: K M Koch; A C Brau; W Chen; G E Gold; B A Hargreaves; M Koff; G C McKinnon; H G Potter; K F King Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Cormac Farrelly; Amir Davarpanah; Stephen A Brennan; Stephen Brennan; Mathew Sampson; Stephen J Eustace Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Martin Kretzschmar; Lorenzo Nardo; Misung M Han; Ursula Heilmeier; Craig Sam; Gabby B Joseph; Kevin M Koch; Roland Krug; Thomas M Link Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lorenzo Nardo; Misung Han; Martin Kretzschmar; Martin Kretschmar; Michele Guindani; Kevin Koch; Thomas Vail; Roland Krug; Thomas M Link Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Philip K Lee; Daehyun Yoon; Jesse K Sandberg; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Brian A Hargreaves Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ellis Niemantsverdriet; Yousra J Dakkak; Leonie E Burgers; Femke Bonte-Mineur; Gerda M Steup-Beekman; Sjoerd M van der Kooij; Hido D Boom; Cornelia F Allaart; Pascal H P de Jong; Annette H M van der Helm-van Mil Journal: Trials Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Zoe Doyle; Daehyun Yoon; Philip K Lee; Jarrett Rosenberg; Brian A Hargreaves; Christopher F Beaulieu; Kathryn J Stevens Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Vignesh K Alamanda; Ivan Demartino; Hollis G Potter; Matthew F Koff; Bin Lin; Ahava Muskat; Geoffrey H Westrich Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2020-08-26