BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is replacing computed tomography (CT) as the main imaging modality for stereotactic transformations. MRI is prone to spatial distortion artifacts, which can lead to inaccuracy in stereotactic procedures. OBJECTIVE: Modern MRI systems provide distortion correction algorithms that may ameliorate this problem. This study investigates the different options of distortion correction using standard 1.5-, 3- and 7-tesla MRI scanners. METHODS: A phantom was mounted on a stereotactic frame. One CT scan and three MRI scans were performed. At all three field strengths, two 3-dimensional sequences, volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) and magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition with gradient echo, were acquired, and automatic distortion correction was performed. Global stereotactic transformation of all 13 datasets was performed and two stereotactic planning workflows (MRI only vs. CT/MR image fusion) were subsequently analysed. RESULTS: Distortion correction on the 1.5- and 3-tesla scanners caused a considerable reduction in positional error. The effect was more pronounced when using the VIBE sequences. By using co-registration (CT/MR image fusion), even a lower positional error could be obtained. In ultra-high-field (7 T) MR imaging, distortion correction introduced even higher errors. However, the accuracy of non-corrected 7-tesla sequences was comparable to CT/MR image fusion 3-tesla imaging. CONCLUSION: MRI distortion correction algorithms can reduce positional errors by up to 60%. For stereotactic applications of utmost precision, we recommend a co-registration to an additional CT dataset.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is replacing computed tomography (CT) as the main imaging modality for stereotactic transformations. MRI is prone to spatial distortion artifacts, which can lead to inaccuracy in stereotactic procedures. OBJECTIVE: Modern MRI systems provide distortion correction algorithms that may ameliorate this problem. This study investigates the different options of distortion correction using standard 1.5-, 3- and 7-tesla MRI scanners. METHODS: A phantom was mounted on a stereotactic frame. One CT scan and three MRI scans were performed. At all three field strengths, two 3-dimensional sequences, volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) and magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition with gradient echo, were acquired, and automatic distortion correction was performed. Global stereotactic transformation of all 13 datasets was performed and two stereotactic planning workflows (MRI only vs. CT/MR image fusion) were subsequently analysed. RESULTS: Distortion correction on the 1.5- and 3-tesla scanners caused a considerable reduction in positional error. The effect was more pronounced when using the VIBE sequences. By using co-registration (CT/MR image fusion), even a lower positional error could be obtained. In ultra-high-field (7 T) MR imaging, distortion correction introduced even higher errors. However, the accuracy of non-corrected 7-tesla sequences was comparable to CT/MR image fusion 3-tesla imaging. CONCLUSION: MRI distortion correction algorithms can reduce positional errors by up to 60%. For stereotactic applications of utmost precision, we recommend a co-registration to an additional CT dataset.
Authors: Christine A Edwards; Aaron E Rusheen; Yoonbae Oh; Seungleal B Paek; Joshua Jacobs; Kristen H Lee; Kendall D Dennis; Kevin E Bennet; Abbas Z Kouzani; Kendall H Lee; Stephan J Goerss Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Simón Oxenford; Jan Roediger; Clemens Neudorfer; Luka Milosevic; Christopher Güttler; Philipp Spindler; Peter Vajkoczy; Wolf-Julian Neumann; Andrea Kühn; Andreas Horn Journal: Elife Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 8.713
Authors: Hyun-Tai Chung; Jeong Hun Kim; Jin Wook Kim; Sun Ha Paek; Dong Gyu Kim; Kook Jin Chun; Tae Hoon Kim; Yong Kyun Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marta Filauro; Francesco Missale; Filippo Marchi; Andrea Iandelli; Andrea Luigi Camillo Carobbio; Francesco Mazzola; Giampiero Parrinello; Emanuele Barabino; Giuseppe Cittadini; Davide Farina; Cesare Piazza; Giorgio Peretti Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Jan-Oliver Neumann; Benito Campos; Bilal Younes; Martin Jakobs; Christine Jungk; Christopher Beynon; Andreas von Deimling; Andreas Unterberg; Karl Kiening Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 3.240