| Literature DB >> 35907975 |
Teresa Guallart-Naval1, José M Algarín2,3, Rubén Pellicer-Guridi4,5, Fernando Galve2,3, Yolanda Vives-Gilabert4,6, Rubén Bosch1, Eduardo Pallás2,3, José M González1, Juan P Rigla1, Pablo Martínez1, Francisco J Lloris4, Jose Borreguero1, Álvaro Marcos-Perucho7, Vlad Negnevitsky8, Luis Martí-Bonmatí9, Alfonso Ríos1, José M Benlloch2,3, Joseba Alonso10,11.
Abstract
Mobile medical imaging devices are invaluable for clinical diagnostic purposes both in and outside healthcare institutions. Among the various imaging modalities, only a few are readily portable. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the gold standard for numerous healthcare conditions, does not traditionally belong to this group. Recently, low-field MRI technology companies have demonstrated the first decisive steps towards portability within medical facilities and vehicles. However, these scanners' weight and dimensions are incompatible with more demanding use cases such as in remote and developing regions, sports facilities and events, medical and military camps, or home healthcare. Here we present in vivo images taken with a light, small footprint, low-field extremity MRI scanner outside the controlled environment provided by medical facilities. To demonstrate the true portability of the system and benchmark its performance in various relevant scenarios, we have acquired images of a volunteer's knee in: (i) an MRI physics laboratory; (ii) an office room; (iii) outside a campus building, connected to a nearby power outlet; (iv) in open air, powered from a small fuel-based generator; and (v) at the volunteer's home. All images have been acquired within clinically viable times, and signal-to-noise ratios and tissue contrast suffice for 2D and 3D reconstructions with diagnostic value. Furthermore, the volunteer carries a fixation metallic implant screwed to the femur, which leads to strong artifacts in standard clinical systems but appears sharp in our low-field acquisitions. Altogether, this work opens a path towards highly accessible MRI under circumstances previously unrealistic.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35907975 PMCID: PMC9338984 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-17472-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Photographs of the low-field extremity scanner: (a) 72 mT Halbach magnet; (b) gradient assembly; (c) RF Tx/Rx coil; (d) view of the scanner inside with a phantom in place; and (e) full system mounted on a transportable structure and in open air.
Figure 2Single slices of 3D-RARE in vivo acquisitions of different volunteers in the MRI physics laboratory: (a) -weighted image of a knee, acquired in 19 min; (b) -weighted image of a hand (10 min), with a faint EMI line visible along the phase-encoded direction; (c)–(e) , and -weighted images of a wrist (12 min).
Figure 3Complete set of axial slices of a -weighted 3D-RARE knee acquisition (11.5 min), showing small distortions towards the edges of the field of view, and some aliasing between the first (top left) and last (bottom right) images.
Figure 4Images of fixation metallic implant attached to the femur, consisting of a plate and seven screws: (a) sagittal view of a raw low-field image acquired with the 72 mT system (9 mm slice from -weighted 3D-RARE acquisition with in-plane resolution of mm, 12 min scan time, eight years after femoral shaft osteotomy); (b) same, but BM4D-filtered[27] and rescaled by to increase the number of pixels; (c) lateral X-ray computed radiography (two weeks after surgery); (d) sagittal view of the same knee, acquired with a Siemens Skyra 3 T system (-weighted 2D-RARE acquisition with slice thickness 3.9 mm and pixel resolution mm, one year after surgery); and (e) 3D reconstruction from -weighted 3D-RARE acquisition with isotropic resolution of 2 mm, 20 min scan time, where selected muscle and fat segments have been removed (eight years after surgery).
Figure 5Photographs during acquisitions (left) and axial slice from 3D-RARE reconstructions (right, no post-processing) at five different locations: (a) in an MRI physics laboratory; (b) in an office room; (c) outside a campus building, connected to a nearby power outlet; (d) in open air, powered from a small fuel-based generator; and (e) at the volunteer’s home.