BACKGROUND: Decreasing MRI scan time is a key factor to increase patient comfort and compliance as well as the productivity of MRI scanners. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: Compressed sensing (CS) should significantly accelerate 3D scans. This study evaluated the clinical application and cost effectiveness of accelerated 3D T2 sequences of the lumbar spine. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, cross-sectional, observational. POPULATION: Twenty healthy volunteers and 10 patients. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3D T2 TSE sequence, identical 3D sequences with three different parallel imaging and CS accelerating factors, and 2D TSE sequences as a clinical reference were obtained on a 3T scanner. ASSESSMENT: Three readers evaluated the sequences for delineation of anatomical structures and image quality. A quantitative analysis consisting of root mean square error, structural similarity index, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio were performed. The scan times were used to calculate cost differences for each sequence. STATISTICAL TESTS: An analysis of variance with repeated measurements and the Friedman test were used to test for potential differences between the sequences. Post-hoc analysis was made with the chi-squared and Tukey-Kramer test. RESULTS: CS with factor 4.5 results in unchanged image quality compared to the T2 TSE for volunteers and patients (overall image impression: 4.75 vs. 4.20 [P = 0.73] and 4.90 vs. 4.47 [P = 0.44]). The CS 4.5 scan is 167 seconds (-39%) faster than the 3D and 216.5 seconds (-45%) faster than the 2D sequences. No significant differences was found for the diagnostic certainty in the volunteers and patients between 2D TSE and 3D CS 4.5 (P = 0.89 and P = 0.43). A reduction of scan time to 148 seconds (CS 8) was still rated acceptable for most diagnosis. DATA CONCLUSION: CS accelerates the 3D T2 without compromising image quality. The 3D sequences offer comparable diagnostic quality to the clinical 2D standard with less scan time (-45%), potentially increasing the productivity of MRI scanners. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e164-e175.
BACKGROUND: Decreasing MRI scan time is a key factor to increase patient comfort and compliance as well as the productivity of MRI scanners. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: Compressed sensing (CS) should significantly accelerate 3D scans. This study evaluated the clinical application and cost effectiveness of accelerated 3D T2 sequences of the lumbar spine. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, cross-sectional, observational. POPULATION: Twenty healthy volunteers and 10 patients. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3D T2 TSE sequence, identical 3D sequences with three different parallel imaging and CS accelerating factors, and 2D TSE sequences as a clinical reference were obtained on a 3T scanner. ASSESSMENT: Three readers evaluated the sequences for delineation of anatomical structures and image quality. A quantitative analysis consisting of root mean square error, structural similarity index, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio were performed. The scan times were used to calculate cost differences for each sequence. STATISTICAL TESTS: An analysis of variance with repeated measurements and the Friedman test were used to test for potential differences between the sequences. Post-hoc analysis was made with the chi-squared and Tukey-Kramer test. RESULTS:CS with factor 4.5 results in unchanged image quality compared to the T2 TSE for volunteers and patients (overall image impression: 4.75 vs. 4.20 [P = 0.73] and 4.90 vs. 4.47 [P = 0.44]). The CS 4.5 scan is 167 seconds (-39%) faster than the 3D and 216.5 seconds (-45%) faster than the 2D sequences. No significant differences was found for the diagnostic certainty in the volunteers and patients between 2D TSE and 3D CS 4.5 (P = 0.89 and P = 0.43). A reduction of scan time to 148 seconds (CS 8) was still rated acceptable for most diagnosis. DATA CONCLUSION:CS accelerates the 3D T2 without compromising image quality. The 3D sequences offer comparable diagnostic quality to the clinical 2D standard with less scan time (-45%), potentially increasing the productivity of MRI scanners. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e164-e175.
Authors: Ulrike Cornelia Isabel Hoyer; Simon Lennartz; Nuran Abdullayev; Florian Fichter; Stephanie T Jünger; Lukas Goertz; Kai Roman Laukamp; Roman Johannes Gertz; Jan-Peter Grunz; Christopher Hohmann; David Maintz; Thorsten Persigehl; Christoph Kabbasch; Jan Borggrefe; Kilian Weiss; Lenhard Pennig Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-07
Authors: J Ding; Y Duan; Z Zhuo; Y Yuan; G Zhang; Q Song; B Gao; B Zhang; M Wang; L Yang; Y Hou; J Yuan; C Feng; J Wang; L Lin; Y Liu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Elisabeth Sartoretti; Thomas Sartoretti; Christoph Binkert; Arash Najafi; Árpád Schwenk; Martin Hinnen; Luuk van Smoorenburg; Barbara Eichenberger; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elisabeth Sartoretti; Thomas Sartoretti; Árpád Schwenk; Alex Alfieri; David Czell; Michael Wyss; Lukas Wildi; Christoph A Binkert; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-01-24
Authors: Elisabeth Sartoretti; Michael Wyss; Alex Alfieri; Christoph A Binkert; Cyril Erne; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer; Thomas Sartoretti Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lenhard Pennig; Christoph Kabbasch; Ulrike Cornelia Isabel Hoyer; Simon Lennartz; David Zopfs; Lukas Goertz; Kai Roman Laukamp; Anton Wagner; Jan-Peter Grunz; Jonas Doerner; Thorsten Persigehl; Kilian Weiss; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 3.649