MR IMAGING OF JOINTS - ANALYTIC OPTIMIZATION OF GRE TECHNIQUES AT 1.5-T

被引:36
|
作者
YAO, L
SINHA, S
SEEGER, LL
机构
关键词
D O I
10.2214/ajr.158.2.1370362
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
To clarify the choice of imaging parameters for optimal gradient-recalled echo MR scanning of joints, we analyzed the behavior of contrast-to-noise and signal-to-noise ratios for spoiled (i.e., fast low-angle shot [FLASH] or spoiled GRASS) and steady-state (i.e., gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state [GRASS] or fast imaging with steady precession) techniques at 1.5 T. The analysis is based on tissue characteristics derived from spin-echo measurements of hyaline cartilage and synovial fluid signal in the patellofemoral joints of 11 volunteers. Separate analysis of contrast-to-noise and signal-to-noise ratios for multiplanar (long TR) acquisitions shows that these parameters are each improved compared with single-slice methods. At TRs greater than 250 msec, there is no significant difference in the contrast behavior of FLASH and GRASS. For optimal contrast-to-noise ratio (synovial fluid-cartilage), the best multiplanar sequence (for TE < 23 msec) is with a short TE and a large flip angle (e.g., 400/9/73-degrees [TR/TE/flip angle]). If a single-scan or three-dimensional technique is desired, then a GRASS sequence at minimal TR and TE and intermediate flip angle (18/9/32-degrees) is best. For optimal signal-to-noise ratio (for both synovial fluid and hyaline cartilage), the best multiplanar sequence uses a short TE and an intermediate flip angle (e.g., 400/9/30-degrees). If a short TR, high signal-to-noise technique is desired, then GRASS (18/9/13-degrees) is superior to FLASH.
引用
收藏
页码:339 / 345
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A COMPARISON OF DEFAULT AND REDUCED BANDWIDTH MR IMAGING OF THE SPINE AT 1.5-T
    KETONEN, L
    TOTTERMAN, S
    SIMON, JH
    FOSTER, TH
    KIDO, DK
    SZUMOWSKI, J
    JOY, SE
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY, 1990, 11 (01) : 9 - 15
  • [22] Benefit of 1.5-T intraoperative MR imaging in the surgical treatment of craniopharyngiomas
    Hofmann, Bernd M.
    Nimsky, Christopher
    Fahlbusch, Rudolf
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2011, 153 (07) : 1377 - 1390
  • [23] Diagnostic Performance of a Dedicated 1.5-T Breast MR Imaging System
    Hillman, Bruce J.
    Harms, Steven E.
    Stevens, Gary
    Stough, Rebecca G.
    Hollingsworth, Alan B.
    Kozlowski, Kamilia F.
    Moss, Lawrence J.
    RADIOLOGY, 2012, 265 (01) : 51 - 58
  • [24] PATTERNS OF NORMAL MENINGEAL ENHANCEMENT AT 1.5-T MR-IMAGING
    QUINT, DJ
    COHEN, JK
    ELDEVIK, OP
    RADIOLOGY, 1995, 197 : 489 - 490
  • [25] MR EVALUATION OF ADRENAL MASSES AT 1.5-T
    BAKER, ME
    BLINDER, R
    SPRITZER, C
    LEIGHT, GS
    HERFKENS, RJ
    DUNNICK, NR
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1989, 153 (02) : 307 - 312
  • [26] MR imaging of the brachial plexus: comparison between 1.5-T and 3-T MR imaging: preliminary experience
    Tagliafico, Alberto
    Succio, Giulia
    Neumaier, Carlo Emanuele
    Serafini, Giovanni
    Ghidara, Matteo
    Calabrese, Massimo
    Martinoli, Carlo
    SKELETAL RADIOLOGY, 2011, 40 (06) : 717 - 724
  • [27] Orbital and ocular imaging using 3-and 1.5-T MR imaging systems
    Mafee, MF
    Rapoport, M
    Karimi, A
    Ansari, SA
    Shah, J
    NEUROIMAGING CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2005, 15 (01) : 1 - +
  • [28] MR imaging of the brachial plexus: comparison between 1.5-T and 3-T MR imaging: preliminary experience
    Alberto Tagliafico
    Giulia Succio
    Carlo Emanuele Neumaier
    Giovanni Serafini
    Matteo Ghidara
    Massimo Calabrese
    Carlo Martinoli
    Skeletal Radiology, 2011, 40 : 717 - 724
  • [29] ACUTE CERVICAL-SPINE TRAUMA - EVALUATION WITH 1.5-T MR IMAGING
    MIRVIS, SE
    GEISLER, FH
    JELINEK, JJ
    JOSLYN, JN
    GELLAD, F
    RADIOLOGY, 1988, 166 (03) : 807 - 816
  • [30] 1.5-T MR IMAGING OF PITUITARY MICROADENOMAS - TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CT CORRELATION
    KULKARNI, MV
    LEE, KF
    MCARDLE, CB
    YEAKLEY, JW
    HAAR, FL
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY, 1988, 9 (01) : 5 - 11