Comparison of 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners in evaluation of acute bone stress in the foot

被引:24
|
作者
Sormaala, Markus J. [1 ,3 ]
Ruohola, Juha-Petri [1 ]
Mattila, Ville M. [1 ,2 ]
Koskinen, Seppo K. [3 ]
Pihlajamaki, Harri K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Ctr Mil Med, Res Dept, FIN-00301 Helsinki, Finland
[2] Tampere Univ Hosp, Dept Orthoped Surg & Trauma, Tampere, Finland
[3] Univ Helsinki, Cent Hosp, Dept Radiol, Helsinki, Finland
关键词
RESOLUTION MRI; FRACTURES; INJURIES; ANKLE;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2474-12-128
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Bone stress injuries are common in athletes and military recruits. Only a minority of bone stress changes are available on plain radiographs. Acute bone stress is often visible on MRI as bone marrow edema, which is also seen in many other disease processes such as malignancies, inflammatory conditions and infections. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of radiographs, 1.5T and 3T MRI to identify acute bone marrow changes in the foot. Methods: Ten patients with 12 stress fractures seen on plain radiographs underwent MRI using 1.5T and 3T scanners. T1 FSE and STIR axial, sagittal, and coronal view sequences were obtained. Two musculoskeletal radiologists interpreted the images independently and by consensus in case of disagreement. Results: Of the 63 acute bone stress changes seen on 3T images, 61 were also seen on 1.5T images. The sensitivity of 1.5T MRI was 97% (95% CI: 89%-99%) compared with 3T. The 3T MRI images where, therefore, at least equally sensitive to 1.5T scanners in detection of bone marrow edema. On T1-weighted sequences, 3T images were slightly superior to 1.5T images in visualizing the demarcation of the edema and bone trabeculae. The kappa-value for inter-observer variability was 0.86 in the MRI indicating substantial interobserver agreement. Conclusions: Owing to slightly better resolution of 3T images, edema characterization is easier, which might aid in the differential diagnosis of the bone marrow edema. There was, however, no noteworthy difference in the sensitivity of the 1.5T and 3T images to bone marrow edema. Routine identification of acute bone stress changes and suspected stress injuries can, therefore, be made with 1.5T field strength.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Quantification of pulsed saturation transfer at 1.5T and 3T
    Chan, Rachel W.
    Myrehaug, Sten
    Stanisz, Greg J.
    Sahgal, Arjun
    Lau, Angus Z.
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2019, 82 (05) : 1684 - 1699
  • [22] 1.5T versus 3T MRI for targeting subthalamic nucleus for deep brain stimulation
    Cheng, Cheng-Hsin
    Huang, Hsing-Ming
    Lin, Hung-Lin
    Chiou, Shang-Ming
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2014, 28 (04) : 467 - 470
  • [23] Comparison of 1.5T vs. 3T MRI of brain for target delineation in glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) patients
    Al-Dhaibani, N.
    Pervez, N.
    Stanescu, T.
    Fallone, G.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2007, 69 (03): : S653 - S653
  • [24] Inter-operator agreement of hyperintense T2 lesions is improved on 3T versus 1.5T scanners
    Wack, D.
    Dwyer, M.
    Di Perri, C.
    Ranza, L.
    Hussein, S.
    Durfee, J.
    Schirda, C.
    Bergsland, N.
    Cox, J.
    Zivadinov, R.
    MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, 2009, 15 (09): : S107 - S107
  • [25] MRI PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF PATIENTS WITH DRUG-RESISTANT FOCAL EPILEPSY: 3T VS. 1.5T
    Ladino, L. D.
    Balaguera, P.
    Tellez-Zenteno, J. F.
    Hernandez-Ronquillo, L.
    Delgado, J. A.
    EPILEPSIA, 2015, 56 : 156 - 156
  • [26] Deep learning reconstruction for the evaluation of neuroforaminal stenosis using 1.5T cervical spine MRI: comparison with 3T MRI without deep learning reconstruction
    Yasaka, Koichiro
    Tanishima, Tomoya
    Ohtake, Yuta
    Tajima, Taku
    Akai, Hiroyuki
    Ohtomo, Kuni
    Abe, Osamu
    Kiryu, Shigeru
    NEURORADIOLOGY, 2022, 64 (10) : 2077 - 2083
  • [27] Deep learning reconstruction for the evaluation of neuroforaminal stenosis using 1.5T cervical spine MRI: comparison with 3T MRI without deep learning reconstruction
    Koichiro Yasaka
    Tomoya Tanishima
    Yuta Ohtake
    Taku Tajima
    Hiroyuki Akai
    Kuni Ohtomo
    Osamu Abe
    Shigeru Kiryu
    Neuroradiology, 2022, 64 : 2077 - 2083
  • [28] MR Diagnosis of Bone Metastases at 1.5T and 3T: Can STIR Imaging Be Omitted?
    Ohlmann-Knafo, S.
    Tarnoki, A. D.
    Tarnoki, D. L.
    Pickuth, D.
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2015, 187 (10): : 924 - 932
  • [29] No Increased Mercury Release from Dental Restorations at 1.5T, 3T, or 7T MRI
    Burkett, Brian J.
    Rasmussen, Chad M.
    Fillmore, W. Jonathan
    McDonald, Jennifer S.
    McDonald, Robert J.
    Fagan, Andrew J.
    Erdahl, Sarah A.
    Eckdahl, Steven J.
    Welker, Kirk M.
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2024, 91 (02) : 660 - 669
  • [30] Brain MRI lesion volume correlates with physical disability and cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: Comparison of 1.5T and 3T
    Stankiewicz, James M.
    Glanz, Bonnie
    Healy, Brian
    Benedict, Ralph
    Arora, Ashish
    Neema, Mohit
    Guss, Zachary D.
    Buckle, Guy
    Houtchens, Maria
    Khoury, Samia
    Weiner, Howard
    Guttmann, Charles
    Bakshi, Rohit
    NEUROLOGY, 2008, 70 (11) : A473 - A473