Lorenzo Nardo1, Misung Han2, Martin Kretzschmar3, Martin Kretschmar, Michele Guindani4, Kevin Koch5,6, Thomas Vail7, Roland Krug8, Thomas M Link9. 1. Musculoskeletal and Quantitative Imaging Research, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 185 Berry street, suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. Lorenzo.Nardo@ucsf.edu. 2. Musculoskeletal and Quantitative Imaging Research, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 185 Berry street, suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. Han.Misung@ucsf.edu. 3. Musculoskeletal and Quantitative Imaging Research, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 185 Berry street, suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. Martin.Kretschmar@ucsf.edu. 4. Department of Biostatistics - Unit 1411, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, P.O. Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. mguindani@mdanderson.org. 5. Department of Biophysics, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. kmkoch@mcw.edu. 6. Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. kmkoch@mcw.edu. 7. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Avenue, MU320, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. vailt@orthosurg.ucsf.edu. 8. Musculoskeletal and Quantitative Imaging Research, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 185 Berry street, suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. Roland.Krug@ucsf.edu. 9. Musculoskeletal and Quantitative Imaging Research, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 185 Berry street, suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. thomas.link@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This work aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of a metal artifact suppression sequence (MAVRIC-SL) for imaging of hip arthroplasties (HA) at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T) field strength. METHODS: Eighteen patients (10 females; aged 27-74) with HA were examined at 3.0 and 1.5 T within 3 weeks. The sequence protocol included 3D-MAVRIC-SL PD (coronal), 3D-MAVRIC-SL STIR (axial), FSE T1, FSE PD and STIR sequences. Anatomical structures and pathological findings were assessed independently by two radiologists. Artifact extent and technical quality (image quality, fat saturation and geometric distortion) were also evaluated. Findings at 1.5 and 3.0 T were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: While image quality was better at 1.5 T, visualization of anatomic structures and clinical abnormalities was not significantly different using the two field strengths (p > 0.05). Fat suppression and amount of artifacts were significantly better at 1.5 T (p < 0.01). Inter- and intra-reader agreement for different anatomic details, image quality and visualization of abnormalities ranged from k = 0.62 to k = 1.00. CONCLUSION: MAVRIC-SL at 1.5 T had a comparable diagnostic performance when compared MAVRIC-SL at 3.0 T; however, the higher field strength was associated with larger artifacts, limited image quality and worse fat saturation.
PURPOSE: This work aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of a metal artifact suppression sequence (MAVRIC-SL) for imaging of hip arthroplasties (HA) at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T) field strength. METHODS: Eighteen patients (10 females; aged 27-74) with HA were examined at 3.0 and 1.5 T within 3 weeks. The sequence protocol included 3D-MAVRIC-SLPD (coronal), 3D-MAVRIC-SL STIR (axial), FSE T1, FSE PD and STIR sequences. Anatomical structures and pathological findings were assessed independently by two radiologists. Artifact extent and technical quality (image quality, fat saturation and geometric distortion) were also evaluated. Findings at 1.5 and 3.0 T were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: While image quality was better at 1.5 T, visualization of anatomic structures and clinical abnormalities was not significantly different using the two field strengths (p > 0.05). Fat suppression and amount of artifacts were significantly better at 1.5 T (p < 0.01). Inter- and intra-reader agreement for different anatomic details, image quality and visualization of abnormalities ranged from k = 0.62 to k = 1.00. CONCLUSION:MAVRIC-SL at 1.5 T had a comparable diagnostic performance when compared MAVRIC-SL at 3.0 T; however, the higher field strength was associated with larger artifacts, limited image quality and worse fat saturation.
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: Soo-Jung Choi; Kevin M Koch; Brian A Hargreaves; Kathryn J Stevens; Garry E Gold Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Donna G Blankenbaker; Steven R Ullrick; Kirkland W Davis; Arthur A De Smet; Ben Haaland; Jason P Fine Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 2.199
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