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
  • [31] 1.5t、3t电弧炉烟尘治理
    张顺喜
    杨洁
    工业安全与环保, 2009, 35 (06) : 9 - 11
  • [32] Comparison of artifact size caused by metallic tissue marking clips at 1.5T and 3T breast MRI: A phantom study
    Peng, Q.
    Dornbluth, C.
    Kist, K.
    Otto, P.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2007, 34 (06) : 2356 - 2356
  • [33] R2*imaging of transfusional iron burden at 3T and comparison with 1.5T
    Storey, Pippa
    Thompson, Alexis A.
    Carqueville, Christine L.
    Wood, John C.
    de Freitas, R. Andrew
    Rigsby, Cynthia K.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2007, 25 (03) : 540 - 547
  • [34] Hyperpolarized 129Xe gas transfer MRI: the transition from 1.5T to 3T
    Wang, Ziyi
    He, Mu
    Bier, Elianna
    Rankine, Leith
    Schrank, Geoffry
    Rajagopal, Sudarshan
    Huang, Yuh-Chin
    Kelsey, Christopher
    Womack, Samantha
    Mammarappallil, Joseph
    Driehuys, Bastiaan
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2018, 80 (06) : 2374 - 2383
  • [35] A robust method to estimate the intracranial volume across MRI field strengths (1.5T and 3T)
    Keihaninejad, Shiva
    Heckemann, Rolf A.
    Fagiolo, Gianlorenzo
    Symms, Mark R.
    Hajnal, Joseph V.
    Hammers, Alexander
    NEUROIMAGE, 2010, 50 (04) : 1427 - 1437
  • [36] Effects of Combining Field Strengths on Auditory Functional MRI Group Analysis: 1.5T and 3T
    Han, Kihwan
    Talavage, Thomas M.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2011, 34 (06) : 1480 - 1488
  • [37] COMPARING BETWEEN MR SPECTROSCOPY DONE AT 1.5T AND 3T
    Tang, Phua Hwee
    Nisa, Sameema
    NEURO-ONCOLOGY, 2022, 24 : 77 - 77
  • [38] Fusion of Preoperative MRI and Postoperative FD-CT for Direct Evaluation of Cochlear Implants An Analysis at 1.5T and 3T
    Eisenhut, Felix
    Taha, Lava
    Kleibe, Isabella
    Hornung, Joachim
    Iro, Heinrich
    Doerfler, Arnd
    Lang, Stefan
    CLINICAL NEURORADIOLOGY, 2020, 30 (04) : 729 - 737
  • [39] Brain MRI Lesion Load at 1.5T and 3T versus Clinical Status in Multiple Sclerosis
    Stankiewicz, James M.
    Glanz, Bonnie I.
    Healy, Brian C.
    Arora, Ashish
    Neema, Mohit
    Benedict, Ralph H. B.
    Guss, Zachary D.
    Tauhid, Shahamat
    Buckle, Guy J.
    Houtchens, Maria K.
    Khoury, Samia J.
    Weiner, Howard L.
    Guttmann, Charles R. G.
    Bakshi, Rohit
    JOURNAL OF NEUROIMAGING, 2011, 21 (02) : e50 - e56
  • [40] Signal intensity of motor and sensory cortices on T2-weighted and FLAIR images: intraindividual comparison of 1.5T and 3T MRI
    Koji Kamada
    Shingo Kakeda
    Norihiro Ohnari
    Junji Moriya
    Toru Sato
    Yukunori Korogi
    European Radiology, 2008, 18 : 2949 - 2955