Clinical Radiology
Volume 67, Issue 2 , Pages 106-113 , February 2012

Three-dimensional isotropic T2-weighted cervical MRI at 3T: Comparison with two-dimensional T2-weighted sequences

  • J.W. Kwon

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: J.W. Kwon, Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Ilwon-Dong, Kangnam-Ku, Seoul 135-710, Republic of Korea. Tel.: +82 2 3410 2568; fax: +82 2 3410 0049.
    • ,
  • Y.C. Yoon
    • ,
  • S.-H. Choi

Received 18 April 2011 ,Revised 20 June 2011 ,Accepted 29 June 2011.

References 

  1. Ramli N, Cooper A, Jaspan T. High resolution CISS imaging of the spine. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:862–873
  2. Gold GE, Busse RF, Beehler C, et al. Isotropic MRI of the knee with 3D fast spin-echo extended echo-train acquisition (XETA): initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1287–1293
  3. Stevens KJ, Busse RF, Han E, et al. Ankle: isotropic MR imaging with 3D-FSE-cube—initial experience in healthy volunteers. Radiology. 2008;249:1026–1033
  4. Meindl T, Wirth S, Weckbach S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine: comparison of 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo, 2D T2∗weighted gradient-recalled echo and 3D T2-weighted variable flip-angle turbo spin echo sequences. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:713–721
  5. Fries P, Runge VM, Kirchin MA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the spine at 3 Tesla. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2008;12:238–252
  6. Shapiro MD. MR imaging of the spine at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14:97–108
  7. Barr C, Bauer JS, Malfair D, et al. MR imaging of the ankle at 3 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla: protocol optimization and application to cartilage, ligament and tendon pathology in cadaver specimens. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1518–1528
  8. Phan CM, Matsuura M, Bauer JS, et al. Trabecular bone structure of the calcaneus: comparison of MR imaging at 3.0 and 1.5 T with micro-CT as the standard of reference. Radiology. 2006;239:488–496
  9. Bowers ME, Tung GA, Trinh N, et al. Effects of ACL interference screws on articular cartilage volume and thickness measurements with 1.5 T and 3 T MRI. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16:572–578
  10. Phalke VV, Gujar S, Quint DJ. Comparison of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MR: imaging of the spine. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2006;16:241–248ix
  11. Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB, et al. Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:375–385
  12. Wicks DA, Barker GJ, Tofts PS. Correction of intensity nonuniformity in MR images of any orientation. Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;11:183–196
  13. Li T, Mirowitz SA. Comparative study of fast MR imaging: quantitative analysis on image quality and efficiency among various time frames and contrast behaviors. Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;20:471–478
  14. Noebauer-Huhmann IM, Glaser C, Dietrich O, et al. MR imaging of the cervical spine: assessment of image quality with parallel imaging compared to non-accelerated MR measurements. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1147–1155
  15. Ahmad I, Rosenbaum AE, Yu FS, et al. Intrinsic cervical spinal cord deformation on MRI: "the distorted ’H’ sign". J Spinal Disord. 1996;9:494–499
  16. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37:360–363
  17. Georgy BA, Hesselink JR. MR imaging of the spine: recent advances in pulse sequences and special techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:923–934
  18. Ross JS. Newer sequences for spinal MR imaging: smorgasbord or succotash of acronyms?. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999;20:361–373
  19. Melhem ER. Technical challenges in MR imaging of the cervical spine and cord. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2000;8:435–452
  20. Fellner C, Menzel C, Fellner FA, et al. BLADE in sagittal T2-weighted MR imaging of the cervical spine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:674–681
  21. Wolansky LJ, Parikh DD, Shah KJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for cervical disc disease: what is your neighbor up to?. J Neuroimaging. 2005;15:183–187
  22. Gold GE, Han E, Stainsby J, et al. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:343–351
  23. Link TM, Majumdar S, Peterfy C, et al. High resolution MRI of small joints: impact of spatial resolution on diagnostic performance and SNR. Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;16:147–155
  24. Czervionke LF, Daniels DL, Wehrli FW, et al. Magnetic susceptibility artifacts in gradient-recalled echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1988;9:1149–1155
  25. Tsuruda JS, Remley K. Effects of magnetic susceptibility artifacts and motion in evaluating the cervical neural foramina on 3DFT gradient-echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1991;12:237–241
  26. Freund M, Sartor K. Degenerative spine disorders in the context of clinical findings. Eur J Radiol. 2006;58:15–26
  27. Miller DH, Grossman RI, Reingold SC, et al. The role of magnetic resonance techniques in understanding and managing multiple sclerosis. Brain. 1998;121(Pt 1):3–24

PII: S0009-9260(11)00300-X

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.06.011

Clinical Radiology
Volume 67, Issue 2 , Pages 106-113 , February 2012

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution