Literature DB >> 26090932

Dynamic 1.5-T vs 3-T true fast imaging with steady-state precession (trueFISP)-MRI sequences for assessment of velopharyngeal function.

K Sinko1, C Czerny2, R Jagsch3, A Baumann1, C Kulinna-Cosentini2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality of MRI scans produced with 1.5- and 3.0-T devices during functional test condition.
METHODS: 65 MRI scans obtained with 1.5- (n = 43) or 3.0-T (n = 22) true fast imaging with steady-state precession (trueFISP) sequences from patients with a history of a cleft palate were evaluated. Two experts assessed the MRI scans, independently of each other, and blinded to the MRI technique used. Subjective ratings were entered on a five-point Likert scale. The median planes of three anatomical structures (velum, tongue and pharyngeal wall) were assessed in three functional states (at rest, during phonation of sustained "e" and during articulation of "kkk"). In addition, MRI scans taken during velopharyngeal closure were evaluated.
RESULTS: Under blinded conditions, both observers (radiologist and orthodontist) independently rated the quality of 1.5-T scans higher than that of 3.0 T. Statistical analysis of pooled data showed that the differences were highly significant (p < 0.009) in 4 out of 10 test conditions. The greatest differences in favour of 1.5 T were observed for MRI scans of the velum.
CONCLUSIONS: 1.5 T used with trueFISP may be preferable over 3.0-T trueFISP for the evaluation of the velopharyngeal structures in the clinical routine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cleft palate; functional MRI; image quality; velopharyngeal closure; velopharyngeal insufficiency

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26090932      PMCID: PMC4628418          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  17 in total

Review 1.  MRI of the small and large bowel.

Authors:  J F Debatin; M A Patak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Real-time MRI of joint movement with trueFISP.

Authors:  Harald H Quick; Mark E Ladd; Matthias Hoevel; Silke Bosk; Joerg F Debatin; Gerhard Laub; Tobias Schroeder
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 3.  [Clinical MR at 3 Tesla: current status].

Authors:  K T Baudendistel; J T Heverhagen; M V Knopp
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 4.  A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research.

Authors:  Joanna M Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui Terry Tao; Johanna Simpson; Andrew C Stanfield; Harriet Johnston; Jehill Parikh; Natalie A Royle; Janet De Wilde; Mark E Bastin; Nick Weir; Andrew Farrall; Maria C Valdes Hernandez
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-09       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Update to pulse sequences for interventional MR imaging.

Authors:  Jamal J Derakhshan; Jeffrey L Duerk
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.266

6.  Comprehensive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: feasibility and implications for clinical applications.

Authors:  Matthias Gutberlet; Ralph Noeske; Kerstin Schwinge; Patrick Freyhardt; Roland Felix; Thoralf Niendorf
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-06       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Does MRI contribute to the investigation of palatal function?

Authors:  S Vadodaria; T E Goodacre; P Anslow
Journal:  Br J Plast Surg       Date:  2000-04

9.  Dynamic near-real-time magnetic resonance imaging for analyzing the velopharyngeal closure in comparison with videofluoroscopy.

Authors:  Ambros J Beer; Paul Hellerhoff; Angela Zimmermann; Katalin Mady; Robert Sader; Ernst J Rummeny; Christian Hannig
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Evaluation of soft palate function with MRI: application to the cleft palate patient.

Authors:  J C McGowan; H Hatabu; D M Yousem; P Randall; H Y Kressel
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1992 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.826

View more
  3 in total

1.  Assessment of nasalance and nasality in patients with a repaired cleft palate.

Authors:  Klaus Sinko; Maike Gruber; Reinhold Jagsch; Imme Roesner; Arnulf Baumann; Arno Wutzl; Doris-Maria Denk-Linnert
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Performance of a new natural oral contrast agent (LumiVision®) in dynamic MR swallowing.

Authors:  Christiane Kulinna-Cosentini; Michael A Arnoldner; Wolfgang Schima; Ivan Kristo; Sebastian F Schoppmann; Michael Weber; Enrico P Cosentini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  The value of 1.5T MRI in the evaluation of vocal fold mobility in patients with goiter.

Authors:  Magdalena Derlatka-Kochel; Marcin Majos; Kamil Ludwisiak; Agata Majos
Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open       Date:  2021-07-14
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.