MRI of the foot and ankle: Diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of a dedicated low field MR scanner

被引:18
作者
Verhoek, G [1 ]
Zanetti, M [1 ]
Duewell, S [1 ]
Zollinger, H [1 ]
Hodler, J [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Dept Radiol, Balgrist Clin, CH-8008 Zurich, Switzerland
来源
JMRI-JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING | 1998年 / 8卷 / 03期
关键词
dedicated low field MR system; foot and ankle; patient acceptance;
D O I
10.1002/jmri.1880080330
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
The objective of this study was to compare Image quality and patient acceptance of a dedicated .2-T MR system and a 1.0-T whole body system. Forty-one consecutive patients referred for MRI of the foot or ankle were prospectively examined with a dedicated .2-T low field system and a 1.0-T whole body system. Images were evaluated qualitatively by two observers and quantitatively using signal-difference-to-noise ratios. The patients were interviewed with respect to positioning, examination time, noise, claustrophobia, confidence in the diagnosis, and willingness to repeat the examination, using a questionnaire. The qualitative score was significantly higher for the 1.0-T system (2.6 vs 2.2 for reader 1 [P = .008] and 2.6 vs 1.7 for reader 2 [P < .0001]), respectively). The signal-difference-to-noise ratios were also superior for the 1.0-T MR system (2.96 vs .88, P < .0001). However, 96% of the lesions visualized at 1.0 T were also detected with the low field system. Patient acceptance was significantly better for the 1.0-T MR scanner (48.6 vs 43.9, P = .007). Image quality of the dedicated low held system was inferior to the 1.0-T system using objective parameters, and patients did not prefer the low field system. Although only 4% of lesions were missed in this series, the low held MR system can only be recommended when funding is limited and the available space is limited.
引用
收藏
页码:711 / 716
页数:6
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
BOTTOMLEY PA, 1984, MED PHYS, V11, P425, DOI 10.1118/1.595535
[2]   THE FIELD-DEPENDENCE OF NMR IMAGING .1. LABORATORY ASSESSMENT OF SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO AND POWER DEPOSITION [J].
CHEN, CN ;
SANK, VJ ;
COHEN, SM ;
HOULT, DI .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 1986, 3 (05) :722-729
[3]  
CRIM JR, 1989, FOOT ANKLE, V10, P1
[4]   MUSCULOSKELETAL MR-IMAGING AT 4 T AND AT 1.5 T - COMPARISON OF RELAXATION-TIMES AND IMAGE-CONTRAST [J].
DUEWELL, SH ;
CECKLER, TL ;
ONG, K ;
WEN, H ;
JAFFER, FA ;
CHESNICK, SA ;
BALABAN, RS .
RADIOLOGY, 1995, 196 (02) :551-555
[5]  
DUEWELL SH, 1995, P 3 ANN SCI M SOC MA, P757
[6]  
EISTER AD, 1994, QUESTIONS ANSWERS MA, P62
[7]  
HENKELMANN RM, 1986, MAGN RESON IMAGING, V4, P387
[8]   THE FIELD-DEPENDENCE OF NMR IMAGING .2. ARGUMENTS CONCERNING AN OPTIMAL FIELD-STRENGTH [J].
HOULT, DI ;
CHEN, CN ;
SANK, VJ .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 1986, 3 (05) :730-746
[9]   MRI OF KNEE-JOINT - FIRST RESULTS OF A COMPARISON OF A 0.2 T DEDICATED SYSTEM WITH A 1.5 T HIGH-FIELD STRENGTH MAGNET [J].
KERSTINGSOMMERHOFF, B ;
GERHARDT, P ;
GOLDER, W ;
HOF, N ;
RIEL, KA ;
HELMBERGER, H ;
LENZ, M ;
LEHNER, K .
FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIETE DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER NEUEN BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 1995, 162 (05) :390-395
[10]  
KINGSTON S, 1988, CLIN SPORT MED, V7, P15