Assessment of Image Quality for Optimal MRI Diagnostic Device Applied to Parameter Changes with 3D FRE at 1.5 T and 3.0 T
AUTHORS
Eun-Hoe Goo,Department of Radiological Science, Cheongju University, Cheongju, Chungbuk,360-764, Republic of Korea
ABSTRACT
The data analysis in this study was conducted to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the 1.5 T 3D TOF HSR method and the 3.0 T 3D TOF SR method, in order to determine whether 1.5 T can complement the image quality of intracranial vessels For SNRs and CNRs, significant results were obtained owing to the high scores of 3.0 T (p<0.05). In the qualitative analysis, significant results were obtained for the A3, M3-M4, and P3-P4 segments owing to the high scores of 1.5 T (p<0.05). However, both 1.5 T and 3.0 T 3D FFE TOF methods provided images that allowed qualitative assessment. The findings of this study confirmed that 1.5 T 3D HRS MRI can complement 3.0 T 3D SR MRI.
KEYWORDS
High spatial resolution, Standard resolution
REFERENCES
[1] D. Mozaffarian, E. J. Benjamin, A. S. Go, D. K. Arnett, M. J. Blaha, M. Cushman, S. R. Das, S. de Ferranti, J. P. Després, H. J. Fullerton, V. J. Howard, M. D. Huffman, C. R. Isasi, M. C. Jiménez, S. E. Judd, B. M. Kissela, J. H. Lichtman, L. D. Lisabeth, S. Liu, R. H. Mackey, D. J. Magid, D. K. McGuire, C. S. Moy, P. Muntner, M. E. Mussolino, K. Nasir, R. W. Neumar, G. Nichol, L. Palaniappan, D. K. Pandey, M. J. Reeves, C. J. Rodriguez, W. Rosamond, P. D. Sorlie, “Executive Summary: Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update”, Circulation. Vol.133, No.4, pp.447-454 (2016). DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000366(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[2] J. Attali, A. Benaissa, S. Soize, K. Kadziolka, C. Portefaix, L. Pierot, “Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverter: comparison of three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography (3D-TOF-MRA) and contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) sequences with digital subtraction angiography as the gold standard”, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery. Vol.8, No.1, (2014). DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011449(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[3] P. Volonghi, D. Tresoldi, M. Cadioli, A. M. Usuelli, R. Ponzini, U. Morbiducci, A. Esposito, G. Rizzo, “Automatic extraction of three‐dimensional thoracic aorta geometric model from phase contrast MRI for morphometric and hemodynamic characterization”, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Vol.75, No.2, pp.873-882. (2016). DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25630(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[4] Z. J. Jia, R. Zhao, Z. G. Yang, Q. H. Huang, X. Q. Deng, B. Hong, J. M. Liu, “Intracranial atherosclerotic middle cerebral arterial stenosis research based on 3.0 Tesla highresolution magnetic resonance imaging: recent progress”, J South Med Univ, Vol.35, No.1, pp.154-158, (2015). DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4254.2015.01.32(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[5] M. A. Bernstein, “Field Strength Dependence in MRI : Advantages and Artifacts at 3 T”, ISMRM, (2006), pp. 1-8.
[6] B. L. Schmitz, A. J. Aschoff, M. H. Hoffmann, G. Grön, “Advantages and pitfalls in 3T MR brain imaging: a pictorial review”, American Journal of Neuroradiology. Vol.26, No.9, pp.2229-2237 (2005).
[7] J. N. Oshinski, J. G. Delfino, P. Sharma, A. M. Gharib, R. I. Pettigrew, “Cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 3.0T: Current state of the art”, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, (2010). DIO: 10.1186/1532-429X-12-55(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[8] C. M. Collins, W. Liu, W. Schreiber, Q. X. Yang, M. B. Smith, “Central brightening due to constructive interference with, without, and despite dielectric resonance”, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Vol.21, No.2, pp.192-196 (2005). DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20245(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)