Mustafa M Almuqbel1,2,3, Gareth Leeper3, David N Palmer4,5, Nadia L Mitchell5,6, Katharina N Russell5,7, Ross J Keenan1,2,3, Tracy R Melzer1,2,8. 1. 1 New Zealand Brain Research Institute , Christchurch , New Zealand. 2. 2 Department of Medicine, University of Otago , Christchurch , New Zealand. 3. 3 Pacific Radiology Group , Christchurch , New Zealand. 4. 4 Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Lincoln University , Lincoln , New Zealand. 5. 5 Batten Animal Research Network (BARN) , Lincoln , New Zealand. 6. 6 Department of Radiology, University of Otago , Christchurch , New Zealand. 7. 7 Department of Wine, Food and Molecular Biosciences, Lincoln University , Lincoln , New Zealand. 8. 8 Brain Research New Zealand - Rangahau Roro Aotearoa, Centre of Research Excellence , Christchurch , New Zealand.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To highlight specific instances when radial k-space acquisitions in MRI result in image artifacts and how to ameliorate such artifacts. METHODS: We acquired axial T2 weighted MR images on (1) the American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom and (2) a sedated sheep with rectilinear and multiblade radial k-space filling acquisitions. Images were acquired on four (2 × 1.5T and 2 × 3T) different MRI scanners. For the radial k-space acquisitions, we acquired images with and without motion correction. All images were visually inspected for the presence of artifact. RESULTS: Images collected via the conventional rectilinear method were of diagnostic quality and free of artifact. Both ACR and sheep images acquired with radial k-space acquisitions and motion correction suffered significant artifact at different slice locations, scan sessions and across all the four scanners. Severity of the artifact was associated with echo train length. However, the artifact was eliminated when motion correction was not employed. CONCLUSION: When little to no motion is present, the use of motion correction with radial k-space acquisitions can compromise image quality. However, image quality is quickly improved, and the artifact eliminated, by repeating the scan without motion correction or by using a conventional rectilinear alternative. Advances in Knowledge: By improving awareness and understanding of this artifact, MRI users will be able to adjust MRI protocols, resulting in more successful scanning sessions, better image quality, fewer call backs and increased diagnostic confidence.
OBJECTIVE: To highlight specific instances when radial k-space acquisitions in MRI result in image artifacts and how to ameliorate such artifacts. METHODS: We acquired axial T2 weighted MR images on (1) the American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom and (2) a sedated sheep with rectilinear and multiblade radial k-space filling acquisitions. Images were acquired on four (2 × 1.5T and 2 × 3T) different MRI scanners. For the radial k-space acquisitions, we acquired images with and without motion correction. All images were visually inspected for the presence of artifact. RESULTS: Images collected via the conventional rectilinear method were of diagnostic quality and free of artifact. Both ACR and sheep images acquired with radial k-space acquisitions and motion correction suffered significant artifact at different slice locations, scan sessions and across all the four scanners. Severity of the artifact was associated with echo train length. However, the artifact was eliminated when motion correction was not employed. CONCLUSION: When little to no motion is present, the use of motion correction with radial k-space acquisitions can compromise image quality. However, image quality is quickly improved, and the artifact eliminated, by repeating the scan without motion correction or by using a conventional rectilinear alternative. Advances in Knowledge: By improving awareness and understanding of this artifact, MRI users will be able to adjust MRI protocols, resulting in more successful scanning sessions, better image quality, fewer call backs and increased diagnostic confidence.
Authors: Bernd J Wintersperger; Val M Runge; Jonmenjoy Biswas; C Brett Nelson; Alto Stemmer; Alexander B Simonetta; Maximilian F Reiser; L G Naul; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: John N Morelli; Val M Runge; Fei Ai; Ulrike Attenberger; Lan Vu; Stuart H Schmeets; Wolfgang R Nitz; John E Kirsch Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Tobias J Dietrich; Erika J Ulbrich; Marco Zanetti; Sandro F Fucentese; Christian W A Pfirrmann Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959