무릎 자기공명영상에 대한 정량적, 정성적 평가: 1.5 T와 3.0 T 기기 비교
Qualitative and Quantitative Assessments of Knee Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison with 1.5 T and 3.0 T
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study aims to conduct an analysis in order to compare the differences in thegeneration of artifacts occurring due to the difference between 1.5 T and 3.0 T MRI equipmentwith three types of pulse sequence applied to the knee MRI. with data on 121 patients transmittedto PACS, this study qualitatively analyzed SNRs and carried out a qualitative evaluation, dividingAC, ACL and PCL into three steps. In the quantitative analysis, The SNRs of 3.0 T MRI showeda more significant result, which was higher than that measured in the 1.5 T MRI (p<0.05). Inthe qualitative analysis, also showed similar to results when compared with 1.5 T (p<0.05). In conclusion, the increased signal to noise ratio at 3.0 T resulted in a better visibility of themajority of AC, ACL, PCL structures as compared to 1.5 T equipment. This study will becomethe guidelines for musculoskeletal system when examining the patients in knee MRI using the twotypes of equipment in the clinical setting in the future.
Abstract
This study aims to conduct an analysis in order to compare the differences in thegeneration of artifacts occurring due to the difference between 1.5 T and 3.0 T MRI equipmentwith three types of pulse sequence applied to the knee MRI. with data on 121 patients transmittedto PACS, this study qualitatively analyzed SNRs and carried out a qualitative evaluation, dividingAC, ACL and PCL into three steps. In the quantitative analysis, The SNRs of 3.0 T MRI showeda more significant result, which was higher than that measured in the 1.5 T MRI (p<0.05). Inthe qualitative analysis, also showed similar to results when compared with 1.5 T (p<0.05). In conclusion, the increased signal to noise ratio at 3.0 T resulted in a better visibility of themajority of AC, ACL, PCL structures as compared to 1.5 T equipment. This study will becomethe guidelines for musculoskeletal system when examining the patients in knee MRI using the twotypes of equipment in the clinical setting in the future.
참고문헌 (12)
- Chang KJ, "3. 0-T MR imaging of the abdomen : comparison with 1. 5T", Radiographics, 28(7), pp.1983~1998 (2008)
- de Bazelaire CM, "MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3. 0 T : preliminary results", Radiology, 230(3), pp.652~659 (2004)
- Grossman JW, "Comparison of the accuracy rates of 3-T and 1. 5-T MRI of the knee in the diagnosis of meniscal tear", AJR, 193(2), pp.509~514 (2009)
- Jung JY, "Knee derangements : comparison of isotropic 3D fast spinecho, isotropic 3D balanced fast field-echo, and conventional 2D fast spin-echo MR imaging", Radiology, 268(3), pp.802~813 (2013)
- Laurell L, "Comparison of ultrasonography with Doppler and MRI for assessment of disease activity in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a pilot study", Pediatr. Rheumatol. Online J, 10(1), pp.23~25 (2012)
- Lee PP, "Multimodality correlations of patellar height measurement on X-ray, CT, and MRI", Skeletal Radiol, 41(10), pp.1309~1314 (2012)
- Lee SY, "Differentiation between grade 3 and grade 4 articular cartilage defects of the knee: fat-suppressed proton density-weighted versus fat-suppressed three-dimensional gradient-echo MRI", Acta Radiol, 51(4), pp.455~461 (2010)
- Meyer JS, "Musculoskeletal MR imaging at 3 T", Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. N. Am, 16(3), pp.533~545 (2008)
- Oldrini G, "MRI appearance of the distal insertion of the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee: an additional criterion for ligament ruptures", Skeletal Radiol, 41(9), pp.1111~1120 (2012)
- Prasad A, "MRI imaging of displaced meniscal tears: Report of a case highlighting new potential pitfalls of the MRI signs", Indian J. Radiol. Imaging, 24(3), pp.291~296 (2014)
- Scott W, "Comparitive study of imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T of the knee", Skeletal Radiol, 38(8), pp.761~769 (2009)
- Van Dyck P, "Comparison of 1.5- and 3-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee", Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc, 22(6), pp.1376~1384 (2014)