| Literature DB >> 30364500 |
Michael Ho1,2, Anton Becker1, Erika Ulbrich1, Andrei Manoliu1, Félix P Kuhn1, Matthias Eberhard1, Lukas Filli1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare conventional single-shot echo planar imaging (ss-EPI) and simultaneous multi-slice (SMS) readout-segmented EPI (rs-EPI) for magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the ulnar nerve.Entities:
Keywords: Medical imaging; Neurology; Neuroscience
Year: 2018 PMID: 30364500 PMCID: PMC6197173 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00853
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Fig. 1MR scanning positioning: The figure shows a volunteer, who has been positioned in prone position for MR imaging of the ulnar nerve at the level of the elbow - the so called “superman position” - with the arm extended overhead. A 4-channel flexible coil (Siemens Healthcare) is placed around the elbow.
Sequence parameters. Abbreviations: ss-EPI, single shot echo planar diffusion-tensor imaging; rs-DTI, readout-segmented echo planar diffusion-tensor imaging; SMS, Simultaneous multi-slice acquisition; TR, repetition time; TE, echo time; FoV, field of view.
| Parameter | DTI based on ss-EPI | DTI based on SMS rs-EPI |
|---|---|---|
| TR | 4,400 ms | 2,800 ms |
| TE | 77 ms | 72 ms |
| Field of view | 100 × 100 mm2 | 100 × 100 mm2 |
| Voxel size | 1.2 × 1.2 × 4.0 mm3 | 1.2 × 1.2 × 4.0 mm3 |
| Slices and slice gap | 36; 0 | 36; 0 |
| Partial Fourier acquisition | 6/8 | 6/8 |
| GRAPPA acceleration factor | 2 | 2 |
| Slice acceleration factor | - | 2 |
| Gradient directions | 20 (monopolar) | 20 (monopolar) |
| Signal averages | b = 0 (5), b = 1,000 (2) | b = 0 (5), b = 1,000 (1) |
| k-space segments | 1 | 5 |
| Bandwidth | 1,112 Hz/Px | 714 Hz/Px |
| Echo spacing | 1.0 ms | 0.50 ms |
| Acquisition time | 5:12 min | 5:18 min |
Quantitative and qualitative image analysis: For both sequences and both readers quantitative parameters SNR, FA, MD are given as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Qualitative grading of artifacts, resolution and overall image quality is provided for each sequence and reader on a 5-point Likert scale (ghosting artifacts: 1, none; 2, low; 3, moderate; 4, high; 5, very high; overall image quality, anatomical depiction of ulnar nerve: 1, excellent; 2, good; 3, moderate; 4, poor; 5, non diagnostic). Paired t-tests were performed to assess potential between group differences. Corresponding p-values are given. Italics indicate statistical significance.
| Reader | 1 | 2 | SMS rs-EPI vs. ss-EPI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protocol | SMS rs-EPI | ss-EPI | SMS rs-EPI | ss-EPI | p-value | |
| SNR | 9.53 | 11.37 | 8.58 | 11.88 | ||
| FA | Mean | 0.578 | 0.631 | 0.607 | 0.631 | 0.11 |
| SD | ±0.0961 | ±0.0755 | ±0.1174 | ±0.0848 | ||
| MD | Mean | 1.27 | 1.32 | 1.42 | 1.41 | 0.93 |
| SD | ±0.122 | ±0.184 | ±0.142 | ±0.211 | ||
| Overall image Quality | 2.56 | 2.20 | 2.56 | 2.00 | ||
| Anatomical depiction of ulnar nerve | 2.22 | 1.80 | 2.44 | 1.70 | ||
| Ghosting artifacts | 2.11 | 2.30 | 1.89 | 2.10 | 0.4 | |
Fig. 2Comparison of anatomical depiction of the ulnar nerve and ghosting artifacts for a 27-year old female healthy volunteer. Panel (A) shows a T2-weighted, fat suppressed, axial image with delineation of the ulnar nerve in the cubital tunnel (white arrow) as standard of reference for anatomical correlation; panel (B), the automatically generated mean diffusivity (MD) map and (D) fractional anisotropy (FA) map for the ss-DTI at the same level, where anatomical depiction of the ulnar nerve was graded “good” and ghosting artefacts were rated “moderate” for both readers for both maps. Panel (C) and (E) demonstrates the corresponding rs-DTI maps. Here the MD map was graded “moderate” for anatomical depiction of the ulnar nerve by both readers and “moderate” for ghosting artifacts by reader 1 and “low” by reader 2. The FA map for rs-DTI was rated “poor” by both readers for anatomical depiction and “moderate” for ghosting artifacts for both readers.