4.2 Article

Wide, Short Bore Magnetic Resonance at 1.5 T

Journal

CLINICAL NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 141-144

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00062-011-0075-4

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging; Claustrophobia; Wide bore scanner; Short bore scanner; Anesthesia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Claustrophobic reactions in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have a significant impact on the workflow, patient acceptance and ultimately the costs involved in obtaining a diagnostic scan. The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of a wide, short bore MRI scanner could reduce the need for general anesthesia assistance in these cases. Between September 2006 and March 2008, all patients for whom MRI examinations of the head and/or spine were canceled or prematurely terminated due to claustrophobia on a standard 60 cm bore, 1.5 T scanner were scheduled to be re-scanned on a 70 cm wide bore, 1.25 m long 1.5 T scanner. This re-scanning attempt was made 2 or more days prior to a scheduled anesthesia-assisted MRI appointment. If the patient successfully completed the wide bore MRI examination then the anesthesia-assisted MRI appointment was canceled. A total of 56 patients were included in this study. The examinations included individual body regions as well as combination examinations (head and cervical spine, entire spine etc.). A total of 72 body regions were examined in 56 patients. Of these regions, 65 (90%) were completed successfully, 50 patients (89%) successfully completed a diagnostic examination on the 70 cm scanner and 6 patients (11%), all of whom were scheduled for examinations which included the head, were unable to complete the examination on the wide bore scanner. A 1.5 T wide short bore scanner increases the examination success rate in patients with claustrophobia and substantially reduces the need for anesthesia-assisted MRI examinations even when claustrophobia is severe.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available