Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 2/2007

01-02-2007 | Musculoskeletal

Is the body-coil at 3 Tesla feasible for the MRI evaluation of the painful knee? A comparative study

Authors: G. Lutterbey, K. Behrends, M. V. Falkenhausen, M. P. Wattjes, N. Morakkabati, J. Gieseke, H. Schild

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 2/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the in-built body coil of the 3.0-Tesla (T) scanner with a dedicated surface coil of a 1.5 T system regarding knee imaging. We performed an intraindividual prospective clinical trial on 17 patients with knee pain using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 1.5 and 3.0 T systems equipped with identical gradient systems. Proton-density-weighted turbo spin echo sequences with the same spatial resolution and comparable contrast parameters were used. A quantitative measurement of signal to noise ratio (SNR), relative contrast (RC) and contrast to noise ratio (CNR) between muscle and bone marrow was performed, followed by a qualitative assessment of anatomic/pathologic structures and the extent of artefacts. At 3.0 T, 30 lesions (91%) compared to 33 lesions at 1.5 T were detected. The SNR/CNR/RC were moderately reduced at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T (muscle 42 vs 47 and bone 83 vs 112/46 vs 69/0.33 vs 0.43). Motion artefacts from the pulsating popliteal artery were significantly increased at 3.0 T. A visible and measurable signal loss occurred at 3.0 T using the built-in body coil compared with the dedicated 1.5 T knee coil, but nearly all clinically important information could be obtained.
Literature
1.
Maubon AJ, Ferru JM, Berger V et al (1999) Effect of field strength on MR images: comparison of the same subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T. Radiographics 19(4):1057–1067PubMed
2.
Link TM, Majumdar S, Peterfy C et al (1998) High resolution MRI of small joints: impact of spatial resolution on diagnostic performance and SNR. Magn Reson Imaging 16(2):147–155CrossRefPubMed
3.
Schick F (2005) Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 15(5):946–959CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mundinger A, Ioannidou M, Dinkel E et al (1990) Inflammatory and traumatic lesions of the knee and ankle: comparison of 0.23 T and 2 T MRI. Radiat Med 8(6):211–214PubMed
5.
Schroder RJ, Fischbach F, Unterhauser FN et al (2004) Value of various MR sequences using 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla in analyzing cartilaginous defects of the patella in an animal model. Rofo 176(11):1667–1675PubMed
6.
Duewell SH, Ceckler TL, Ong K et al (1995) Musculoskeletal MR imaging at 4 T and at 1.5 T: comparison of relaxation times and image contrast. Radiology 196(2):551–555PubMed
7.
Lu H, Clingman C, Golay X et al (2004) Determining the longitudinal relaxation time (T1) of blood at 3.0 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 52(3):679–682CrossRefPubMed
8.
de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM et al (2004) MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 230(3):652–659PubMedCrossRef
9.
Peterson DM, Carruthers CE, Wolverton BL et al (1999) Application of a birdcage coil at 3 Tesla to imaging of the human knee using MRI. Magn Reson Med 42(2):215–221PubMedCrossRef
10.
Kornaat PR, Reeder SB, Koo S, Brittain JH, Yu H, Andriacchi TP, Gold GE (2005) MR imaging of articular cartilage at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of SPGR and SSFP sequences. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 13(4):338–344CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gold GE, Han E, Stainsby J, Wright G et al (2004) Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183(2):343–351PubMed
12.
Gold GE, Suh B, Sawyer-Glover A et al (2004) Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 83(5):1479–1486
Metadata
Title
Is the body-coil at 3 Tesla feasible for the MRI evaluation of the painful knee? A comparative study
Authors
G. Lutterbey
K. Behrends
M. V. Falkenhausen
M. P. Wattjes
N. Morakkabati
J. Gieseke
H. Schild
Publication date
01-02-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 2/2007
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0219-0

Other articles of this Issue 2/2007

European Radiology 2/2007 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Adrenal angiomyolipoma in lymphangioleiomyomatosis

Vascular-Interventional

Diagnostics and characterisation of preocclusive stenoses and occlusions of the internal carotid artery with B-flow

Chest

Additional value of integrated PET-CT in the detection and characterization of lung metastases: correlation with CT alone and PET alone

Cardiac

Diagnostic value of ECG-gated multidetector computed tomography in the early phase of suspected acute myocarditis. A preliminary comparative study with cardiac MRI

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Stent grafting of acute hepatic artery bleeding following pancreatic head resection

Gastrointestinal

The appearances of oesophageal carcinoma demonstrated on high-resolution, T2-weighted MRI, with histopathological correlation