OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare the multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination selective (MAVRIC SL) sequence with the 2D fast spin-echo (FSE) sequence for metal artifact reduction on 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty (HA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Matched 2D FSE and MAVRIC SL images of 21 hips (19 patients with HA) were included in the study group. Paired image sets, composed of 13 coronal and 12 axial slices (total, 25 image sets), of the 21 hips were evaluated. For quantitative analysis, the artifact area was measured at the level of the hip and femur. For qualitative analysis, two musculoskeletal radiologists independently compared paired 2D FSE and MAVRIC SL sets in terms of artifacts, depiction of anatomic detail, level of diagnostic confidence, and detection of abnormal findings. RESULTS: The measured artifact area was significantly smaller (p < 0.05) on MAVRIC SL than 2D FSE at both the level of hip (59.9% reduction with MAVRIC SL) and femur (31.3% reduction with MAVRIC SL). The artifact score was also significantly decreased (p < 0.0001) with MAVRIC SL compared with 2D FSE for both reviewers. The hip joint capsule and the muscle and tendon attachment sites of the obturator externus and iliopsoas muscles were better depicted with MAVRIC SL than 2D FSE (p < 0.0125). Abnormal findings were significantly better shown on MAVRIC SL imaging compared with 2D FSE imaging (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The MAVRIC SL sequence can significantly reduce metal artifact on 3-T MRI compared with the 2D FSE sequence and can increase diagnostic confidence of 3-T MRI in patients with total HA.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare the multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination selective (MAVRIC SL) sequence with the 2D fast spin-echo (FSE) sequence for metal artifact reduction on 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty (HA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Matched 2D FSE and MAVRIC SL images of 21 hips (19 patients with HA) were included in the study group. Paired image sets, composed of 13 coronal and 12 axial slices (total, 25 image sets), of the 21 hips were evaluated. For quantitative analysis, the artifact area was measured at the level of the hip and femur. For qualitative analysis, two musculoskeletal radiologists independently compared paired 2D FSE and MAVRIC SL sets in terms of artifacts, depiction of anatomic detail, level of diagnostic confidence, and detection of abnormal findings. RESULTS: The measured artifact area was significantly smaller (p < 0.05) on MAVRIC SL than 2D FSE at both the level of hip (59.9% reduction with MAVRIC SL) and femur (31.3% reduction with MAVRIC SL). The artifact score was also significantly decreased (p < 0.0001) with MAVRIC SL compared with 2D FSE for both reviewers. The hip joint capsule and the muscle and tendon attachment sites of the obturator externus and iliopsoas muscles were better depicted with MAVRIC SL than 2D FSE (p < 0.0125). Abnormal findings were significantly better shown on MAVRIC SL imaging compared with 2D FSE imaging (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The MAVRIC SL sequence can significantly reduce metal artifact on 3-T MRI compared with the 2D FSE sequence and can increase diagnostic confidence of 3-T MRI in patients with total HA.
Authors: Daniel E Weiland; Tim A Walde; Serena B Leung; Christi J Sychterz; Stephanie Ho; Charles A Engh; Hollis G Potter Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2005-04-12 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Tim A Walde; Daniel E Weiland; Serena B Leung; Nobuto Kitamura; Christi J Sychterz; C Anderson Engh; Alexandra M Claus; Hollis G Potter; Charles A Engh Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Hollis G Potter; Bryan J Nestor; Carolyn M Sofka; Stephanie T Ho; Lance E Peters; Eduardo A Salvati Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Alissa J Burge; Gabrielle P Konin; Jennifer L Berkowitz; Bin Lin; Matthew F Koff; Hollis G Potter Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Kelly C Zochowski; Mauro A Miranda; Jacky Cheung; Erin C Argentieri; Bin Lin; S Sivaram Kaushik; Alissa J Burge; Hollis G Potter; Matthew F Koff Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Niccolo Fuin; Stefano Pedemonte; Onofrio A Catalano; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore; Keith Heberlein; Jacob M Hooker; Koen Van Leemput; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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