Literature DB >> 26700352

Comparison Between 1.5-T and 3-T MRI for Fetal Imaging: Is There an Advantage to Imaging With a Higher Field Strength?

Teresa Victoria1, Ann M Johnson1, J Christopher Edgar1, Deborah M Zarnow1, Arastoo Vossough1, Diego Jaramillo1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Fetal MRI at 3 T is emerging as a promising modality for evaluating fetal anatomy. The objective of this study was to compare the quality of images obtained with commonly used fetal imaging sequences at 1.5 T and 3 T. We hypothesized that the visualization and anatomic detail of fetal structures would be better at 3 T than at 1.5 T.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective search of the radiology department database at our institution identified 58 fetal MRI examinations performed at 3 T to evaluate body abnormalities during the period from July 2012 to February 2014. A blind comparison was conducted between these examinations and 58 1.5-T MRI examinations of age-matched fetuses undergoing evaluation for similar abnormalities during the same period. The anatomic structures analyzed included the bowel, liver, kidney, airway, cartilage, and spine. Scores for the depiction of anatomic structures ranged from 0 to 4, with 4 denoting the best depiction.
RESULTS: Fetal imaging at 3 T was associated with higher imaging scores in the evaluation of the cartilage and spine when single-shot turbo spin-echo (SSTSE) and steady-state free precession (SSFP) sequences were used and in the assessment of most structures (e.g., bowel, liver, kidney, cartilage, and spine) when SSFP sequences were used. The mean scores for all structures evaluated with the use of SSTSE sequences were higher when MRI was performed at 3 T than at 1.5 T; similar findings were noted when SSFP sequences were used. Evaluation of imaging scores with regard to gestational age showed that scores improved with increasing gestational age on 1.5-T MRI but not on 3-T MRI. Overall, more imaging artifacts were found when imaging was performed at 3 T than at 1.5 T.
CONCLUSION: An overall advantage to performing fetal imaging at 3 T was made evident by the higher imaging scores obtained with 3-T MRI versus 1.5-T MRI when different fetal anatomic structures were evaluated. These higher scores were predominantly associated with use of SSFP sequences. The findings of this study and future advancements in MRI software and 3-T protocols may allow optimal visualization and examination of fetal pathologic abnormalities, thus better identifying fetal and maternal needs both prenatally and postnatally.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3-T fetal MRI; fetal imaging; prenatal imaging

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26700352     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.14205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  20 in total

Review 1.  Image-quality optimization and artifact reduction in fetal magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Fedel Machado-Rivas; Camilo Jaimes; John E Kirsch; Michael S Gee
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2020-11-30

Review 2.  How to read a fetal magnetic resonance image 101.

Authors:  Ailish C Coblentz; Sara R Teixeira; David M Mirsky; Ann M Johnson; Tamara Feygin; Teresa Victoria
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2020-11-30

Review 3.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal musculoskeletal system.

Authors:  Nancy A Chauvin; Teresa Victoria; Asef Khwaja; Hisham Dahmoush; Diego Jaramillo
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2020-11-30

Review 4.  Prenatal diagnosis of spina bifida: from intracranial translucency to intrauterine surgery.

Authors:  Waldo Sepulveda; Amy E Wong; Francisco Sepulveda; Juan L Alcalde; Juan C Devoto; Felipe Otayza
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 5.  Fetal MRI at 3T-ready for routine use?

Authors:  Christian Weisstanner; Gerlinde M Gruber; Peter C Brugger; Christan Mitter; Mariana C Diogo; Gregor Kasprian; Daniela Prayer
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Fetal lung apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla: Correlation with gestational age.

Authors:  Onur Afacan; Ali Gholipour; Robert V Mulkern; Carol E Barnewolt; Judy A Estroff; Susan A Connolly; Richard B Parad; Sigrid Bairdain; Simon K Warfield
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Congenital diaphragmatic hernia sacs: prenatal imaging and associated postnatal outcomes.

Authors:  Edward R Oliver; Suzanne E DeBari; Samantha E Adams; Ryne A Didier; Steven C Horii; Teresa Victoria; Holly L Hedrick; N Scott Adzick; Lori J Howell; Julie S Moldenhauer; Beverly G Coleman
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-01-11

8.  A survey of pediatric diagnostic radiologists in North America: current practices in fetal magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Teresa Chapman; Adina L Alazraki; Meryle J Eklund
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2018-09-03

Review 9.  Fetal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: a primer on how to interpret prenatal lung lesions.

Authors:  Niamh C Adams; Teresa Victoria; Edward R Oliver; Julie S Moldenhauer; N Scott Adzick; Gabrielle C Colleran
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2020-11-30

10.  3D Super-Resolution Motion-Corrected MRI: Validation of Fetal Posterior Fossa Measurements.

Authors:  Danielle B Pier; Ali Gholipour; Onur Afacan; Clemente Velasco-Annis; Sean Clancy; Kush Kapur; Judy A Estroff; Simon K Warfield
Journal:  J Neuroimaging       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 2.486

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.