M A van der Jagt1, W M Brink2, M J Versluis2, S C A Steens3, J J Briaire1, A G Webb2, J H M Frijns4, B M Verbist5. 1. From the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology (M.A.v.d.J., J.J.B., J.H.M.F.). 2. Radiology (W.M.B., M.J.V., A.G.W., B.M.V.) C.J. Gorter Center for High-Field MRI (W.M.B., M.J.V., A.G.W.). 3. Department of Radiology (S.C.A.S., B.M.V.), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 4. From the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology (M.A.v.d.J., J.J.B., J.H.M.F.) Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (J.H.M.F.), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands J.H.M.Frijns@lumc.nl. 5. Radiology (W.M.B., M.J.V., A.G.W., B.M.V.) Department of Radiology (S.C.A.S., B.M.V.), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In many centers, MR imaging of the inner ear and auditory pathway performed on 1.5T or 3T systems is part of the preoperative work-up of cochlear implants. We investigated the applicability of clinical inner ear MR imaging at 7T and compared the visibility of inner ear structures and nerves within the internal auditory canal with images acquired at 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients with sensorineural hearing loss eligible for cochlear implantation underwent examinations on 3T and 7T scanners. Two experienced head and neck radiologists evaluated the 52 inner ear datasets. Twenty-four anatomic structures of the inner ear and 1 overall score for image quality were assessed by using a 4-point grading scale for the degree of visibility. RESULTS: The visibility of 11 of the 24 anatomic structures was rated higher on the 7T images. There was no significant difference in the visibility of 13 anatomic structures and the overall quality rating. A higher incidence of artifacts was observed in the 7T images. CONCLUSIONS: The gain in SNR at 7T yielded a more detailed visualization of many anatomic structures, especially delicate ones, despite the challenges accompanying MR imaging at a high magnetic field.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In many centers, MR imaging of the inner ear and auditory pathway performed on 1.5T or 3T systems is part of the preoperative work-up of cochlear implants. We investigated the applicability of clinical inner ear MR imaging at 7T and compared the visibility of inner ear structures and nerves within the internal auditory canal with images acquired at 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients with sensorineural hearing loss eligible for cochlear implantation underwent examinations on 3T and 7T scanners. Two experienced head and neck radiologists evaluated the 52 inner ear datasets. Twenty-four anatomic structures of the inner ear and 1 overall score for image quality were assessed by using a 4-point grading scale for the degree of visibility. RESULTS: The visibility of 11 of the 24 anatomic structures was rated higher on the 7T images. There was no significant difference in the visibility of 13 anatomic structures and the overall quality rating. A higher incidence of artifacts was observed in the 7T images. CONCLUSIONS: The gain in SNR at 7T yielded a more detailed visualization of many anatomic structures, especially delicate ones, despite the challenges accompanying MR imaging at a high magnetic field.
Authors: Kim S van der Marel; Jeroen J Briaire; Ron Wolterbeek; Jorien Snel-Bongers; Berit M Verbist; Johan H M Frijns Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Maarten J Versluis; Wouter M Teeuwisse; Hermien E Kan; Mark A van Buchem; Andrew G Webb; Matthias J van Osch Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Janani S Iyer; Shelley A Batts; Kengyeh K Chu; Mehmet I Sahin; Hui Min Leung; Guillermo J Tearney; Konstantina M Stankovic Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi; Theresa Marie Raiser; Ria Maxine Rühl; Virginia Lee Flanagin; Peter Zu Eulenburg Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Rudolf Glueckert; Lejo Johnson Chacko; Dominik Schmidbauer; Thomas Potrusil; Elisabeth J Pechriggl; Romed Hoermann; Erich Brenner; Alen Reka; Anneliese Schrott-Fischer; Stephan Handschuh Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 4.677