4.5 Article

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

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 11, 页码 1962-1967

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7299

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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?

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据