4.5 Article

Spiral 2D T2-Weighted TSE Brain MR Imaging: Initial Clinical Experience

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 11, Pages 1962-1967

Publisher

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7299

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, spiral MRI showed a significant reduction in scan time compared to conventional Cartesian and MultiVane sequences. In terms of image quality, both the spiral and MultiVane sequences outperformed the Cartesian sequence in overall image quality, motion artifacts, and subjective preference.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spiral MR imaging may enable improved image quality and higher scan speeds than Cartesian trajectories. We sought to compare a novel spiral 2D T2-weighted TSE sequence with a conventional Cartesian and an artifact-robust, non-Cartesian sequence named MultiVane for routine clinical brain MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients were scanned with all 3 sequences (Cartesian, 4 minutes 14?seconds; MultiVane, 2 minutes 49?seconds; spiral, 2 minutes 12?seconds) on a standard clinical 1.5T MR scanner. Three readers described the presence and location of abnormalities and lesions and graded images qualitatively in terms of overall image quality, the presence of motion and pulsation artifacts, gray-white matter differentiation, lesion conspicuity, and subjective preference. Image quality was objectivized by measuring the SNR and the coefficients of variation for CSF, GM, and WM. RESULTS: Spiral achieved a scan time reduction of 51.9% and 21.9% compared with Cartesian and MultiVane, respectively. The number and location of lesions were identical among all sequences. As for the qualitative analysis, interreader agreement was high (Krippendorff ??> .75). Spiral and MultiVane both outperformed the Cartesian sequence in terms of overall image quality, the presence of motion artifacts, and subjective preference (P??.15). Spiral and MultiVane outperformed the Cartesian sequence in coefficient of variation WM and SNR (P?

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