PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity of conventional spin-echo, fast spin-echo, fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and turbo gradient spin-echo MR sequences in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. METHODS: Conventional spin-echo, fast spin-echo, fast FLAIR, and turbo gradient spin-echo sequences were performed on a 1.0-T MR imager in seven patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis. The images in each sequence were evaluated by two raters and consensus was reached by agreement. RESULTS: In comparing conventional spin-echo with fast spin-echo sequences, five lesions were seen only by conventional spin-echo and 63 were seen only by fast spin-echo; in comparing conventional spin-echo with fast FLAIR sequences, 18 lesions were seen only by conventional spin-echo and 109 only by fast FLAIR; in comparing conventional spin-echo with turbo gradient spin-echo sequences, 51 lesions were seen only by conventional spin-echo and seven only by turbo gradient spin-echo; in comparing fast spin-echo with fast FLAIR sequences, 45 lesions were seen only by fast spin-echo and 52 only by fast FLAIR. CONCLUSION: Fast spin-echo and fast FLAIR sequences improve the sensitivity of MR imaging in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions with reduced acquisition time as compared with conventional spin-echo sequences. These sequences should therefore be considered for serial studies in patients with multiple sclerosis. The sensitivity of turbo gradient spin-echo was inferior to the other sequences, but its reduced acquisition time could make this technique the ideal choice for patients who cannot tolerate longer examination times.
PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity of conventional spin-echo, fast spin-echo, fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and turbo gradient spin-echo MR sequences in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. METHODS: Conventional spin-echo, fast spin-echo, fast FLAIR, and turbo gradient spin-echo sequences were performed on a 1.0-T MR imager in seven patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis. The images in each sequence were evaluated by two raters and consensus was reached by agreement. RESULTS: In comparing conventional spin-echo with fast spin-echo sequences, five lesions were seen only by conventional spin-echo and 63 were seen only by fast spin-echo; in comparing conventional spin-echo with fast FLAIR sequences, 18 lesions were seen only by conventional spin-echo and 109 only by fast FLAIR; in comparing conventional spin-echo with turbo gradient spin-echo sequences, 51 lesions were seen only by conventional spin-echo and seven only by turbo gradient spin-echo; in comparing fast spin-echo with fast FLAIR sequences, 45 lesions were seen only by fast spin-echo and 52 only by fast FLAIR. CONCLUSION: Fast spin-echo and fast FLAIR sequences improve the sensitivity of MR imaging in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions with reduced acquisition time as compared with conventional spin-echo sequences. These sequences should therefore be considered for serial studies in patients with multiple sclerosis. The sensitivity of turbo gradient spin-echo was inferior to the other sequences, but its reduced acquisition time could make this technique the ideal choice for patients who cannot tolerate longer examination times.
Authors: M Tintoré; A Rovira; M J Martínez; J Rio; P Díaz-Villoslada; L Brieva; C Borrás; E Grivé; J Capellades; X Montalban Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mike P Wattjes; Götz G Lutterbey; Michael Harzheim; Jürgen Gieseke; Frank Träber; Luisa Klotz; Thomas Klockgether; Hans H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M P Wattjes; G G Lutterbey; J Gieseke; F Träber; L Klotz; S Schmidt; H H Schild Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Francesca Bagnato; Simon Hametner; David Pennell; Richard Dortch; Adrienne N Dula; Siddharama Pawate; Seth A Smith; Hans Lassmann; John C Gore; Edward B Welch Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: D M Moriarty; A J Blackshaw; P R Talbot; H L Griffiths; J S Snowden; V F Hillier; S Capener; R D Laitt; A Jackson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1999 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Varun Sethi; Govind Nair; Martina Absinta; Pascal Sati; Arun Venkataraman; Joan Ohayon; Tianxia Wu; Kelly Yang; Colin Shea; Blake E Dewey; Irene Cm Cortese; Daniel S Reich Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Mike P Wattjes; Götz G Lutterbey; Michael Harzheim; Jürgen Gieseke; Frank Träber; Luisa Klotz; Thomas Klockgether; Hans H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J P McNulty; R Lonergan; P C Brennan; M G Evanoff; R O'Laoide; J T Ryan; N Tubridy Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 3.649