Qualitative Comparison of 0.27T, 1.5T, and 3T Magnetic Resonance Images of the Normal Equine Foot

被引:9
|
作者
Bolen, Geraldine [1 ]
Audigie, Fabrice [2 ]
Spriet, Mathieu [3 ]
Vandenberghe, Filip [4 ]
Busoni, Valeria [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liege, Dept Compan Anim & Equidae, Med Imaging Sect, B-4000 Liege, Belgium
[2] Natl Vet Sch Alfort, Goustranville, France
[3] Univ Calif Davis, Sch Vet Med, Dept Surg & Radiol Sci, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[4] Referral Hosp Horses & Small Anim, Dierenklin Bosdreef, Moerbeke Wass, Belgium
关键词
MRI; Horses; Foot; Magnetic field; Low-field; High-field; DISTAL INTERPHALANGEAL JOINT; DIGITAL FLEXOR TENDON; LOW-FIELD MRI; COLLATERAL LIGAMENTS; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGING FINDINGS; PODOTROCHLEAR APPARATUS; RHEUMATOID-ARTHRITIS; SIGNAL INTENSITY; HORSES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jevs.2009.11.002
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has become an important diagnostic tool in the investigation of foot pain in horses. The aim of this study was to qualitatively compare ex-vivo MR images of the same equine feet obtained at three magnetic field strengths: 0.27, 1.5, and 3 tesla (T). Ten cadaver feet were used. All feet were imaged with two high-field systems (3T, 1.5T) and with a low-field (LF) system at 0.27 T designed for standing horses. Images were acquired using similar pulse sequences in all 3 MR units. MR images were subjectively evaluated by three independent experienced image analysts for image quality and clarity of visualization of individual anatomical structures using a four-point grading scale. The images from all of the examinations were considered to be of diagnostic value except for the hoof capsule where substantial artifacts were present in LF images with distortion and loss of signal at the dorsal/distal aspect of the hoof capsule in LF images. Anatomical structure scoring values of images obtained at 3T and 1.5T were significantly greater than scores of images obtained at 0.27T. Scores for images obtained at 3T were significantly higher than those for images obtained at 1.5T. Mean score differences between 1.5T and 3T were higher for cartilage of the distal interphalangeal joint and for the ungular cartilages.
引用
收藏
页码:9 / 20
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of 1.5T and 3T 1H MR spectroscopy for human brain tumors
    Kim, Ji-hoon
    Chang, Kee-Hyun
    Na, Dong Gyu
    Song, In Chan
    Kim, Seung Ja
    Kwon, Bae Ju
    Han, Moon Hee
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2006, 7 (03) : 156 - 161
  • [32] Improved BOLD Signal Detectability of Short Breath Holding Duration at 3T: A Comparison with 1.5T
    Kuan, W.
    Hsu, Y.
    Lim, K.
    Liu, H.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (06)
  • [33] Regional Variation within the Cerebral Cortex Evaluated by Diffusion-weighted Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficients on 1.5T and 3T Magnetic Resonance Images
    Yeung, T. W.
    Lau, H. Y.
    Wong, Y. C.
    HONG KONG JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2013, 16 (02): : 100 - 109
  • [34] Imaging of Meniscal Tear and Cartilage Damage at 1.5T, 3T, and 7T
    Sammet, S.
    Wassenaar, P.
    Zalewski, S.
    Stoez, M.
    Knopp, M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 192 (05)
  • [35] DIFFERENCES IN QUANTITATIVE MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION MAPPING BY CMR AT 1.5T AND 3T
    Javed, Wasim
    Goh, Z.
    Shabi, M.
    Sharrack, N.
    Gorecka, M.
    Levelt, E.
    Xue, H.
    Dall'Armellina, E.
    Kellman, P.
    Greenwood, J. P.
    Plein, S.
    Swoboda, P. P.
    HEART, 2023, 109 (SUPPL_1) : A16 - A16
  • [36] Neurovascular contact in trigeminal neuralgia. A comparison between 3T and 1.5T MR imaging
    Echeveste, B. E.
    Minguez, A.
    Imaz, L.
    Trzeciak, M.
    Barriobero, N.
    Arregui, A.
    Trevino, C.
    Garcia de Eulate, R.
    Dominguez, P.
    Zubieta, J. L.
    Martinez-Vila, E.
    Irimia, P.
    CEPHALALGIA, 2015, 35 : 254 - 254
  • [37] Comparison of a 1.5T Standard vs. 3T Optimized Protocols in Multiple Sclerosis Patients
    Livshits, Ilya
    Hussein, Sara
    Kennedy, Cheryl
    Weinstock-Guttman, Bianca
    Hojnacki, David
    Zivadinov, Robert
    NEUROLOGY, 2012, 78
  • [38] Comparison of a 1.5T standard vs. 3T optimized protocols in multiple sclerosis patients
    Livshits, L.
    Hussein, S.
    Kennedy, C.
    Weinstock-Guttman, B.
    Hojnacki, D.
    Zivadinov, R.
    MINERVA MEDICA, 2012, 103 (02) : 97 - 102
  • [39] Comparison of Diffusion Metrics Obtained at 1.5T and 3T in Human Brain With Diffusional Kurtosis Imaging
    Shaw, Calvin B.
    Jensen, Jens H.
    Deardorff, Rachael L.
    Spampinato, Maria Vittoria
    Helpern, Joseph A.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2017, 45 (03) : 673 - 680
  • [40] 7T MR of intracranial pathology: Preliminary observations and comparisons to 3T and 1.5T
    Obusez, Emmanuel C.
    Lowe, Mark
    Oh, Se-Hong
    Wang, Irene
    Bullen, Jennifer
    Ruggieri, Paul
    Hill, Virginia
    Lockwood, Daniel
    Emch, Todd
    Moon, Doksu
    Loy, Gareth
    Lee, Jonathan
    Kiczek, Matthew
    Massand, Manoj
    Statsevych, Volodymyr
    Stultz, Todd
    Jones, Stephen E.
    NEUROIMAGE, 2018, 168 : 459 - 476