Tobias Pogarell1, Matthias S May1,2, Armin M Nagel1,3, Michael Uder1,2, Rafael Heiss4,5. 1. Radiologisches Institut, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland. 2. Imaging Science Institute, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Deutschland. 3. Division of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Deutschland. 4. Radiologisches Institut, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland. rafael.heiss@uk-erlangen.de. 5. Imaging Science Institute, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Deutschland. rafael.heiss@uk-erlangen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a crucial role in musculoskeletal imaging. The high prevalence and pain-related suffering of patients pose a particular challenge concerning availability and turnover times, respectively. Low-field (≤ 1.0 T) MRI has the potential to fulfill these needs. However, during the past three decades, high field systems have increasingly replaced low field systems because of their limitations in image quality. Recent technological advancements in high-performance hard- and software promise musculoskeletal imaging with adequate quality at lower field strengths for several regions and indications. OBJECTIVES: The goal is to provide insight into the advantages and disadvantages of low-field musculoskeletal imaging, discuss the current literature, and include our first experiences with a modern 0.55 T MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review is based on research in various literature databases and our own musculoskeletal imaging experiences with a modern 0.55 T scanner. CONCLUSION: Most publications pertaining to musculoskeletal imaging at low-field strength MRI are outdated, and studies regarding the diagnostic performance of modern low-field MRI systems are needed. These new systems may complement existing high-field systems and make MRI more accessible, even in low-income countries. From our own experience, modern low-field MRI seems to be adequate in musculoskeletal imaging, especially in acute injuries.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a crucial role in musculoskeletal imaging. The high prevalence and pain-related suffering of patients pose a particular challenge concerning availability and turnover times, respectively. Low-field (≤ 1.0 T) MRI has the potential to fulfill these needs. However, during the past three decades, high field systems have increasingly replaced low field systems because of their limitations in image quality. Recent technological advancements in high-performance hard- and software promise musculoskeletal imaging with adequate quality at lower field strengths for several regions and indications. OBJECTIVES: The goal is to provide insight into the advantages and disadvantages of low-field musculoskeletal imaging, discuss the current literature, and include our first experiences with a modern 0.55 T MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review is based on research in various literature databases and our own musculoskeletal imaging experiences with a modern 0.55 T scanner. CONCLUSION: Most publications pertaining to musculoskeletal imaging at low-field strength MRI are outdated, and studies regarding the diagnostic performance of modern low-field MRI systems are needed. These new systems may complement existing high-field systems and make MRI more accessible, even in low-income countries. From our own experience, modern low-field MRI seems to be adequate in musculoskeletal imaging, especially in acute injuries.
Authors: Oliver Kraff; Anja Fischer; Armin M Nagel; Christoph Mönninghoff; Mark E Ladd Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Rafael Heiss; Armin M Nagel; Frederik B Laun; Michael Uder; Sebastian Bickelhaupt Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Rajiv Ramasawmy; Matthew C Restivo; Ipshita Bhattacharya; Burcu Basar; Daniel A Herzka; Michael S Hansen; Toby Rogers; W Patricia Bandettini; Delaney R McGuirt; Christine Mancini; David Grodzki; Rainer Schneider; Waqas Majeed; Himanshu Bhat; Hui Xue; Joel Moss; Ashkan A Malayeri; Elizabeth C Jones; Alan P Koretsky; Peter Kellman; Marcus Y Chen; Robert J Lederman; Robert S Balaban Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Filippo Del Grande; Francesco Santini; Daniel A Herzka; Michael R Aro; Cooper W Dean; Garry E Gold; John A Carrino Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333