PURPOSE: To evaluate the relaxation time-based contrast between the main tissues of the musculoskeletal system as measured in the human knee with magnetic resonance imaging at 4 T and 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five volunteers underwent 4-T and 1.5-T imaging. Inversion-recovery series were used to measure T1 values, and T2 values were measured with a spin-echo sequence. RESULTS: T1 values increased in all tissues with 4-T imaging. Values increased in muscle from 1 to 1.8 seconds, in fat from 0.3 to 0.4 seconds, and in cartilage from 0.8 to 1.5 seconds. T2 values were 10%-20% shorter in all tissues at 4 T. CONCLUSION: Advantages of 4-T imaging compared with 1.5-T imaging include a higher signal-to-noise ratio and an improved signal difference-to-noise ratio. However, any improvement in signal-to-noise ratio at high field strengths can partially be reduced by the increase in the T1 value. The slightly shorter T2 values at 4 T do not affect image contrast.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relaxation time-based contrast between the main tissues of the musculoskeletal system as measured in the human knee with magnetic resonance imaging at 4 T and 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five volunteers underwent 4-T and 1.5-T imaging. Inversion-recovery series were used to measure T1 values, and T2 values were measured with a spin-echo sequence. RESULTS: T1 values increased in all tissues with 4-T imaging. Values increased in muscle from 1 to 1.8 seconds, in fat from 0.3 to 0.4 seconds, and in cartilage from 0.8 to 1.5 seconds. T2 values were 10%-20% shorter in all tissues at 4 T. CONCLUSION: Advantages of 4-T imaging compared with 1.5-T imaging include a higher signal-to-noise ratio and an improved signal difference-to-noise ratio. However, any improvement in signal-to-noise ratio at high field strengths can partially be reduced by the increase in the T1 value. The slightly shorter T2 values at 4 T do not affect image contrast.
Authors: G Lutterbey; K Behrends; M V Falkenhausen; M P Wattjes; N Morakkabati; J Gieseke; H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Yu Yuan; Cory Wyatt; Paolo Maccarini; Paul Stauffer; Oana Craciunescu; James Macfall; Mark Dewhirst; Shiva K Das Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Adam W Anz; Jos Edison; Thomas S Denney; Eric A Branch; Christopher R Walz; Kenny V Brock; Michael D Goodlett Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Małgorzata Marjańska; Lynn E Eberly; Gregor Adriany; Sarah N Verdoliva; Michael Garwood; Lisa Chow Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 4.668
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