Literature DB >> 7713087

Low-field versus high-field MR imaging of the knee: a comparison of signal behaviour and diagnostic performance.

P M Parizel1, H A Dijkstra, G P Geenen, P A Kint, R J Versteylen, P J van Wiechen, A M De Schepper.   

Abstract

A prospective study was undertaken to compare MR imaging of the knee obtained with low-field and high-field systems. In 10 subjects, MR imaging of the knee was performed on a 0.2 T permanent magnet and on a 1.5 T superconductive system. Similar spin echo (SE) and 3D-FISP (3D Fourier transform with steady state precession) acquisitions were obtained. Comparative image analysis was performed independently by four radiologists. Results show that the image quality and diagnostic performance delivered by state-of-the-art 0.2 T and 1.5 T systems is equivalent. Advantages of the 1.5 T system included: better signal-to-noise ratio, shorter scan times, better visualization of asymptomatic grade 1 meniscal degeneration on SE images. Advantages of 0.2 T images were: decreased chemical shift, susceptibility and flow artifacts, improved evaluation of subchondral bone on 3D-FISP images, slightly better patient tolerance. We conclude that, for MR imaging of the knee, a low-field system is a cost-effective alternative to more expensive superconducting units.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7713087     DOI: 10.1016/0720-048x(94)00589-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of flow artifacts between 2D-FLAIR and 3D-FLAIR sequences at 3 T.

Authors:  Shinji Naganawa; Tokiko Koshikawa; Tatsuya Nakamura; Hisashi Kawai; Hiroshi Fukatsu; Takeo Ishigaki; Tomomi Komada; Katsuya Maruyama; Osamu Takizawa
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-06-19       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  The optimal use of contrast agents at high field MRI.

Authors:  Siegfried Trattnig; Kathia Pinker; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Iris-Melanie Nöbauer-Huhmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-01       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Mass screening for retrocochlear disorders: low-field-strength (0.2-T) versus high-field-strength (1.5-T) MR imaging.

Authors:  Frédérique Dubrulle; Julia Delomez; Alireza Kiaei; Pierre Berger; Christophe Vincent; François-Michel M Vaneecloo; Laurent Lemaitre
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2002 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Arthroscopic and low-field MRI (0.25 T) evaluation of meniscus and ligaments of painful knee.

Authors:  Harish S Lokannavar; Xiaochun Yang; Harsha Guduru
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2012-05-23

5.  Role of low field MRI in detecting knee lesions.

Authors:  Massimiliano Leigheb; Giuseppe Guzzardi; Michela Barini; Michele Abruzzese; Silvia Riva; Alessio Paschè; Francesco Pogliacomi; Lia Rimondini; Alessandro Stecco; Federico Alberto Grassi; Alessandro Carriero
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2018-12-10

6.  Analysis of Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners for Evaluation of Knee Pathology Based on Arthroscopy.

Authors:  Christopher S Lee; Shane M Davis; Claire McGroder; William B Stetson; Scott E Powell
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2013-12-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.