Effect of field strength on MR images: Comparison of the same subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T

被引:68
作者
Maubon, AJ
Ferru, JM
Berger, V
Soulage, MC
DeGraef, M
Aubas, P
Coupeau, P
Dumont, E
Rouanet, JP
机构
[1] Ctr Medicochirurg Beausoleil, Dept Radiol, F-34000 Montpellier, France
[2] CHU Montpellier, Dept Med Informat, Montpellier, France
[3] Philips Med Syst, Paris, France
关键词
magnetic resonance (MR); high-field-strength imaging; low-field-strength imaging;
D O I
10.1148/radiographics.19.4.g99jl281057
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100207 [影像医学与核医学]; 1009 [特种医学];
摘要
To assess the effect of field strength on magnetic resonance (MR) images, the same healthy subject was imaged at three field strengths: 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T. Imaging was performed with three similarly equipped MR imagers of the same generation and from the same manufacturer. The same imaging sequences were used with identical parameters and without repetition time correction for field strength. Imaging was performed in four anatomic locations: the brain, lumbar spine, knee, and abdomen. Quantitative image analysis involved calculation of signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and relative contrast; qualitative image analysis was performed by four readers blinded to field strength. The results of all of the examinations were considered to be of diagnostic value. In general, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were lowest at 0.5 T and highest at 1.5 T; relative contrast was not related to field strength. At qualitative analysis, images obtained at 1.0 and 1.5 T were superior to images obtained at 0.5 T; qualitative differences were less important in locations where there is motion or high magnetic susceptibility differences between tissues (eg, the spine and abdomen). However, excellent image quality was obtained with all three field strengths.
引用
收藏
页码:1057 / 1067
页数:11
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]
CEREBRAL MAGNETIC-RESONANCE - COMPARISON OF HIGH AND LOW FIELD-STRENGTH IMAGING [J].
BILANIUK, LT ;
ZIMMERMAN, RA ;
WEHRLI, FW ;
GOLDBERG, HI ;
GROSSMAN, RI ;
BOTTOMLEY, PA ;
EDELSTEIN, WA ;
GLOVER, GH ;
MACFALL, JR ;
REDINGTON, RW ;
KRESSEL, HY .
RADIOLOGY, 1984, 153 (02) :409-414
[2]
Future cost-effective MRI will be at high field [J].
Bradley, WG .
JMRI-JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 1996, 6 (01) :63-66
[3]
NUCLEAR MAGNETIC-RESONANCE IMAGING - CONTRAST-TO-NOISE RATIO AS A FUNCTION OF STRENGTH OF MAGNETIC-FIELD [J].
HART, HR ;
BOTTOMLEY, PA ;
EDELSTEIN, WA ;
KARR, SG ;
LEUE, WM ;
MUELLER, O ;
REDINGTON, RW ;
SCHENCK, JF ;
SMITH, LS ;
VATIS, D .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1983, 141 (06) :1195-1201
[4]
THE FIELD-DEPENDENCE OF NMR IMAGING .2. ARGUMENTS CONCERNING AN OPTIMAL FIELD-STRENGTH [J].
HOULT, DI ;
CHEN, CN ;
SANK, VJ .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 1986, 3 (05) :730-746
[5]
FIELD-STRENGTH IN NEURO-MR IMAGING - A COMPARISON OF 0.5-T AND 1.5-T [J].
JACK, CR ;
BERQUIST, TH ;
MILLER, GM ;
FORBES, GS ;
GRAY, JE ;
MORIN, RL ;
ILSTRUP, DM .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 1990, 14 (04) :505-513
[6]
MR-IMAGING FIELD-STRENGTH - PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY OF MR FOR DIAGNOSIS OF MULTIPLE-SCLEROSIS AT 0.5-T AND 1.5-T [J].
LEE, DH ;
VELLET, AD ;
ELIASZIW, M ;
VIDITO, L ;
EBERS, GC ;
RICE, GP ;
HEWETT, L ;
DUNLAVY, S .
RADIOLOGY, 1995, 194 (01) :257-262
[7]
MARSHALL D, 1994, CAN ASSOC RADIOL J, V45, P180
[8]
COMPARISON OF CT, LOW-FIELD-STRENGTH MR IMAGING, AND HIGH-FIELD-STRENGTH MR IMAGING - WORK IN PROGRESS [J].
ORRISON, WW ;
STIMAC, GK ;
STEVENS, EA ;
LAMASTERS, DL ;
ESPINOSA, MC ;
COBB, L ;
METTLER, FA .
RADIOLOGY, 1991, 181 (01) :121-127
[9]
LOW-FIELD VERSUS HIGH-FIELD MR-IMAGING OF THE KNEE - A COMPARISON OF SIGNAL BEHAVIOR AND DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE [J].
PARIZEL, PM ;
DIJKSTRA, HAJ ;
GEENEN, GPJ ;
KINT, PAM ;
VERSTEYLEN, RJ ;
VANWIECHEN, PJ ;
DESCHEPPER, AM .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1995, 19 (02) :132-138
[10]
LIVER METASTASES - DETECTION WITH MR IMAGING AT 0.5 AND 1.5T [J].
REINIG, JW ;
DWYER, AJ ;
MILLER, DL ;
FRANK, JA ;
ADAMS, GW ;
CHANG, AE .
RADIOLOGY, 1989, 170 (01) :149-153