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
Skeletal Radiology

Open Access 21-02-2024 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Review Article

Modern low-field MRI

Authors: Tobias Pogarell, Rafael Heiss, Rolf Janka, Armin M. Nagel, Michael Uder, Frank W. Roemer

Published in: Skeletal Radiology

Login to get access

Abstract

This narrative review explores recent advancements and applications of modern low-field (≤ 1 Tesla) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in musculoskeletal radiology. Historically, high-field MRI systems (1.5 T and 3 T) have been the standard in clinical practice due to superior image resolution and signal-to-noise ratio. However, recent technological advancements in low-field MRI offer promising avenues for musculoskeletal imaging. General principles of low-field MRI systems are being introduced, highlighting their strengths and limitations compared to high-field counterparts. Emphasis is placed on advancements in hardware design, including novel magnet configurations, gradient systems, and radiofrequency coils, which have improved image quality and reduced susceptibility artifacts particularly in musculoskeletal imaging. Different clinical applications of modern low-field MRI in musculoskeletal radiology are being discussed. The diagnostic performance of low-field MRI in diagnosing various musculoskeletal pathologies, such as ligament and tendon injuries, osteoarthritis, and cartilage lesions, is being presented. Moreover, the discussion encompasses the cost-effectiveness and accessibility of low-field MRI systems, making them viable options for imaging centers with limited resources or specific patient populations. From a scientific standpoint, the amount of available data regarding musculoskeletal imaging at low-field strengths is limited and often several decades old. This review will give an insight to the existing literature and summarize our own experiences with a modern low-field MRI system over the last 3 years. In conclusion, the narrative review highlights the potential clinical utility, challenges, and future directions of modern low-field MRI, offering valuable insights for radiologists and healthcare professionals seeking to leverage these advancements in their practice.
Literature
1.
Kijowski R, Fritz J. Emerging technology in musculoskeletal MRI and CT. Radiology. 2023;306(1):6–19.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Heiss R, Nagel AM, Laun FB, Uder M, Bickelhaupt S. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging: a new generation of breakthrough technology in clinical imaging. Invest Radiol. 2021;56(11):726–33.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Krampla W, Roesel M, Svoboda K, Nachbagauer A, Gschwantler M, Hruby W. MRI of the knee: how do field strength and radiologist’s experience influence diagnostic accuracy and interobserver correlation in assessing chondral and meniscal lesions and the integrity of the anterior cruciate ligament? Eur Radiol. 2009;19(6):1519–28.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Roemer FW, Guermazi A. What is the role of 3 T MRI in sports medicine? Revisiting the marriage after the honeymoon. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(15):894–5.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Van Dyck P, Kenis C, Vanhoenacker FM, Lambrecht V, Wouters K, Gielen JL, et al. Comparison of 1.5- and 3-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(6):1376–84.PubMed
6.
Kijowski R, Blankenbaker DG, Davis KW, Shinki K, Kaplan LD, De Smet AA. Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. Radiology. 2009;250(3):839–48.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Grossman JW, De Smet AA, Shinki K. Comparison of the accuracy rates of 3-T and 1.5-T MRI of the knee in the diagnosis of meniscal tear. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(2):509–14.PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
Runge VM, Heverhagen JT. Advocating the development of next-generation, advanced-design low-field magnetic resonance systems. Invest Radiol. 2020;55(12):747–53.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Kraff O, Fischer A, Nagel AM, Mönninghoff C, Ladd ME. MRI at 7 Tesla and above: demonstrated and potential capabilities. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(1):13–33.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Pogarell T, May MS, Nagel AM, Uder M, Heiss R. Imaging of the musculoskeletal system using low-field magnetic resonance imaging. Radiologe. 2022;62(5):410–7.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Puig S, Kuruvilla YC, Ebner L, Endel G. Magnetic resonance tomography of the knee joint. Skeletal Radiol. 2015;44(10):1427–34.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Crues JV, Shellock FG, Dardashti S, James TW, Troum OM. Identification of wrist and metacarpophalangeal joint erosions using a portable magnetic resonance imaging system compared to conventional radiographs. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(4):676–85.PubMed
14.
Mazurek MH, Cahn BA, Yuen MM, Prabhat AM, Chavva IR, Shah JT, et al. Portable, bedside, low-field magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of intracerebral hemorrhage. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):5119.ADSPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
16.
Tavernier T, Cotten A. High- versus low-field MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2005;43(4):673–81 (viii).PubMedCrossRef
17.
Sneag DB, Abel F, Potter HG, Fritz J, Koff MF, Chung CB, et al. MRI advancements in musculoskeletal clinical and research practice. Radiology. 2023;308(2):e230531.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Khodarahmi I, Keerthivasan MB, Brinkmann IM, Grodzki D, Fritz J. Modern low-field MRI of the musculoskeletal system: practice considerations, opportunities, and challenges. Invest Radiol. 2023;58(1):76–87.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Campbell-Washburn AE, Ramasawmy R, Restivo MC, Bhattacharya I, Basar B, Herzka DA, et al. Opportunities in interventional and diagnostic imaging by using high-performance low-field-strength MRI. Radiology. 2019;293(2):384–93.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Del Grande F, Santini F, Herzka DA, Aro MR, Dean CW, Gold GE, Carrino JA. Fat-suppression techniques for 3-T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Radiographics. 2014;34(1):217–33.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Wohlgemuth WA, Roemer FW, Bohndorf K. Short tau inversion recovery and three-point Dixon water-fat separation sequences in acute traumatic bone fractures at open 0.35 tesla MRI. Skeletal Radiol. 2002;31(6):343–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Harris CA, White LM. Metal artifact reduction in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging. Orthop Clin North Am. 2006;37(3):349–59 (vi).PubMedCrossRef
23.
Schröder FF, Post CE, van Raak SM, Simonis FFJ, Wagenaar FBM, Huis In’t Veld R, Verdonschot N. The diagnostic potential of low-field MRI in problematic total knee arthroplasties - a feasibility study. J Exp Orthop. 2020;7(1):59.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
25.
26.
Chou R, Fu R, Carrino JA, Deyo RA. Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;373(9662):463–72.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Breit HC, Vosshenrich J, Hofmann V, Rusche T, Kovacs BK, Bach M, et al. Image quality of lumbar spine imaging at 0.55T low-field mri is comparable to conventional 1.5T MRI - initial observations in healthy volunteers. Acad Radiol. 2023;30(11):2440–6.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Hutchins TA, Peckham M, Shah LM, Parsons MS, Agarwal V, Boulter DJ, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® low back pain: 2021 update. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18(11s):S361-s379.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Dean DG. The role of MRI in musculoskeletal practice: a clinical perspective. J Man Manip Ther. 2011;19(3):152–61.CrossRef
30.
Loew R, Kreitner KF, Runkel M, Zoellner J, Thelen M. MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0.2 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) imaging. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(6):989–96.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Lee CS, Davis SM, McGroder C, Kouk S, Sung RM, Stetson WB, Powell SE. Analysis of low-field MRI scanners for evaluation of shoulder pathology based on arthroscopy. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(7):2325967114540407.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Steinbach LS, Fritz RC, Tirman PF, Uffman M. Magnetic resonance imaging of the elbow. Eur J Radiol. 1997;25(3):223–41.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Okamoto Y, Maehara K, Kanahori T, Hiyama T, Kawamura T, Minami M. Incidence of elbow injuries in adolescent baseball players: screening by a low field magnetic resonance imaging system specialized for small joints. Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34(4):300–6.PubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
Brydie A, Raby N. Early MRI in the management of clinical scaphoid fracture. Br J Radiol. 2003;76(905):296–300.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Saupe N, Prüssmann KP, Luechinger R, Bösiger P, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR imaging of the wrist: comparison between 1.5- and 3-T MR imaging--preliminary experience. Radiology. 2005;234(1):256–64.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Anderson ML, Skinner JA, Felmlee JP, Berger RA, Amrami KK. Diagnostic comparison of 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla preoperative MRI of the wrist in patients with ulnar-sided wrist pain. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(7):1153–9.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Vellet AD, Lee DH, Munk PL, Hewett L, Eliasziw M, Dunlavy S, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament tear: prospective evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of middle- and high-field-strength MR imaging at 1.5 and 0.5 T. Radiology. 1995;197(3):826–30.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Cotten A, Delfaut E, Demondion X, Lapègue F, Boukhelifa M, Boutry N, et al. MR imaging of the knee at 0.2 and 1.5 T: correlation with surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(4):1093–7.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Roemer FW, Guermazi A, Lynch JA, Peterfy CG, Nevitt MC, Webb N, et al. Short tau inversion recovery and proton density-weighted fat suppressed sequences for the evaluation of osteoarthritis of the knee with a 1.0 T dedicated extremity MRI: development of a time-efficient sequence protocol. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(5):978–87.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Roemer FW, Guermazi A, Javaid MK, Lynch JA, Niu J, Zhang Y, et al. Change in MRI-detected subchondral bone marrow lesions is associated with cartilage loss: the MOST Study. A longitudinal multicentre study of knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(9):1461–5.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Englund M, Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Aliabadi P, Yang M, Lewis CE, et al. Meniscal tear in knees without surgery and the development of radiographic osteoarthritis among middle-aged and elderly persons: the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(3):831–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Roemer FW, Zhang Y, Niu J, Lynch JA, Crema MD, Marra MD, et al. Tibiofemoral joint osteoarthritis: risk factors for MR-depicted fast cartilage loss over a 30-month period in the multicenter osteoarthritis study. Radiology. 2009;252(3):772–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Roemer FW, Lynch JA, Niu J, Zhang Y, Crema MD, Tolstykh I, et al. A comparison of dedicated 1.0 T extremity MRI vs large-bore 1.5 T MRI for semiquantitative whole organ assessment of osteoarthritis: the MOST study. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2010;18(2):168–74.CrossRef
45.
Verhoek G, Zanetti M, Duewell S, Zollinger H, Hodler J. MRI of the foot and ankle: diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of a dedicated low field MR scanner. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8(3):711–6.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Herber S, Kreitner KF, Kalden P, Löw R, Berger S, Thelen M. Low-field MRI of the ankle joint: initial experience in children and adolescents using an open 0.2 T MR-system. Rofo. 2000;172(3):267–73.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Metadata
Title
Modern low-field MRI
Authors
Tobias Pogarell
Rafael Heiss
Rolf Janka
Armin M. Nagel
Michael Uder
Frank W. Roemer
Publication date
21-02-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Skeletal Radiology
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-024-04597-4