S B Cho1, H J Baek2, K H Ryu1, B H Choi1, J I Moon1, T B Kim1, S K Kim3, H Park3, M J Hwang4. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (S.B.C., H.J.B., K.H.R., B.H.C., J.I.M., T.B.K.). 2. From the Departments of Radiology (S.B.C., H.J.B., K.H.R., B.H.C., J.I.M., T.B.K.) sartre81@gmail.com. 3. Neurosurgery (S.K.K., H.P.), Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Changwon, Republic of Korea. 4. MR Applications and Workflow (M.J.H.), GE Healthcare Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conventional MR imaging techniques cannot produce optimal images of bone structures because bone has little water and a very short T2 life span. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical feasibility of skull MR imaging using the zero TE sequence in patients with head trauma by assessing its diagnostic image quality and quantitative measurement compared with CT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen enrolled patients with head trauma were assessed using brain CT and skull MR imaging. Image quality was graded on a 5-point Likert scale to compare the 2 modalities. To evaluate quantitative analyses between the 2 imaging modalities, we measured skull thickness and normalized bone tissue signal. Interobserver reliability was assessed using weighted κ statistics and the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Both imaging techniques clearly depicted skull fractures in all 13 patients. The mean scores for skull MR imaging and CT were 4.65 ± 0.56 and 4.73 ± 0.45 (P = .157), respectively, with substantial interobserver agreement (P < .05). The 2 imaging modalities showed no difference in skull thickness (P = .092) and had good correlation (r 2 = 0.997). The mean value of normalized bone tissue signal among the 3 layers of the skull was relatively consistent (P = .401) with high interobserver agreement (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Zero TE skull MR imaging has diagnostic image quality comparable with that of CT images. It also provides consistent results on the quantitative measurement of cortical bone with CT images.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conventional MR imaging techniques cannot produce optimal images of bone structures because bone has little water and a very short T2 life span. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical feasibility of skull MR imaging using the zero TE sequence in patients with head trauma by assessing its diagnostic image quality and quantitative measurement compared with CT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen enrolled patients with head trauma were assessed using brain CT and skull MR imaging. Image quality was graded on a 5-point Likert scale to compare the 2 modalities. To evaluate quantitative analyses between the 2 imaging modalities, we measured skull thickness and normalized bone tissue signal. Interobserver reliability was assessed using weighted κ statistics and the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Both imaging techniques clearly depicted skull fractures in all 13 patients. The mean scores for skull MR imaging and CT were 4.65 ± 0.56 and 4.73 ± 0.45 (P = .157), respectively, with substantial interobserver agreement (P < .05). The 2 imaging modalities showed no difference in skull thickness (P = .092) and had good correlation (r 2 = 0.997). The mean value of normalized bone tissue signal among the 3 layers of the skull was relatively consistent (P = .401) with high interobserver agreement (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Zero TE skull MR imaging has diagnostic image quality comparable with that of CT images. It also provides consistent results on the quantitative measurement of cortical bone with CT images.
Authors: Florian Wiesinger; Laura I Sacolick; Anne Menini; Sandeep S Kaushik; Sangtae Ahn; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Gaspar Delso; Dattesh D Shanbhag Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: R K Zeman; S H Fox; P M Silverman; W J Davros; L M Carter; D Griego; D I Weltman; S M Ascher; C J Cooper Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Upasana Upadhyay Bharadwaj; Adam Coy; Daria Motamedi; Dong Sun; Gabby B Joseph; Roland Krug; Thomas M Link Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 2.128
Authors: Silke Hecht; Kimberly M Anderson; Aude Castel; John F Griffin; Adrien-Maxence Hespel; Nathan Nelson; Xiaocun Sun Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2021-04-22
Authors: You Na Kim; Jin Wook Choi; Yong Cheol Lim; Jihye Song; Ji Hyun Park; Woo Sang Jung Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 3.500