• J Magn Reson Imaging · Apr 2009

    Comparative Study

    Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla MRI in patients with chronic liver diseases.

    • Miguel Ramalho, Vasco Herédia, Masakatsu Tsurusaki, Ersan Altun, and Richard C Semelka.
    • Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
    • J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Apr 1; 29 (4): 869-79.

    PurposeTo compare the quantitative and qualitative image quality intra-individually, at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla (T) in patients with chronic liver diseases.Materials And MethodsThe study group included 24 consecutive patients (17 males, 7 females; mean age +/- standard deviation 56.5 +/- 11.5) who had chronic liver diseases and underwent abdominal MRI for the liver evaluation at both 1.5 and 3.0 T within a 4-month period. All MRI studies were retrospectively evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitative analysis was performed by measuring signal to noise ratio (SNR) on various abdominal organs. Qualitative analysis was performed by two reviewers to assess image quality, artifacts, and imaging findings of chronic liver diseases. Quantitative and qualitative analyses findings were compared between 1.5 and 3.0 T using the paired Student t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test, respectively.ResultsThe statistically significant increase in SNRs in various abdominal tissues ranged from 1.3- to 3.5-fold at 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T. Three-dimensional gradient echo (3D-GE) sequences demonstrated significantly higher image quality at 3.0 T (P < 0.01), whereas precontrast spoiled gradient echo (SGE) sequences demonstrated significantly higher image quality at 1.5 T (P < 0.01). T2-weighted sequences did not show any significant difference in image quality between 1.5 and 3.0 T (P > 0.05).ConclusionThe SNRs of various abdominal tissues demonstrated significant increases at 3.0 T. The image quality of 3D-GE sequences was higher at 3.0 T, whereas the image quality of precontrast SGE sequences was higher at 1.5T.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.