4.5 Article

Fat Quantification Using Multiecho Sequences with Bipolar Gradients: Investigation of Accuracy and Noise Performance

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 71, Issue 1, Pages 219-229

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24657

Keywords

fat quantification; magnetic resonance imaging; multiecho; bipolar gradient; eddy currents; chemical shift

Funding

  1. Magnus Bergvalls stiftelse
  2. Direktor Albert Pahlssons stiftelse

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To investigate the accuracy and noise performance of fat quantification with multiple gradient-echo images acquired using bipolar read-out gradients and compare them with those of the well-established unipolar technique. TheoryThe bipolar read-out technique induces phase and amplitude errors caused by gradient delays, eddy currents, and frequency-dependent coil sensitivity. In this study, these errors were corrected for jointly with the fat/water separation by modeling the impact of these effects on the signal. This approach did not require acquisition of reference data or modification of the pulse sequence. MethodsSimulations and a phantom experiment were used to investigate the accuracy and noise performance of the technique and compare them with those of a well-established technique using unipolar read-out gradients. Also, the in vivo feasibility was demonstrated for abdominal applications. ResultsThe phantom experiment demonstrated similar accuracy of the bipolar and unipolar fat quantification techniques. In addition, the noise performance was shown not to be affected by the added estimations of the phase and amplitude errors for most inter-echo times. ConclusionThe bipolar technique was found to provide accurate fat quantification with noise performance similar to the unipolar technique given an appropriate choice of inter-echo time. Magn Reson Med 71:219-229, 2014. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available