UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Is dedicated extremity 1.5-T MRI equivalent to standard large-bore 1.5-T MRI for foot and knee examinations?


Sutter, Reto; Tresch, Florian; Buck, Florian M; Pfirrmann, Christian W A (2014). Is dedicated extremity 1.5-T MRI equivalent to standard large-bore 1.5-T MRI for foot and knee examinations? American Journal of Roentgenology, 203(6):1293-1302.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare dedicated extremity MRI and standard large-bore MRI of the lower extremities in the same patients.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine patients (27 feet and 42 knees) were examined both with extremity 1.5-T MRI and standard 1.5-T MRI. Scanning duration was measured, and patients completed a detailed questionnaire after each examination (4-point scale). Two readers assessed image quality parameters. Data were analyzed with the paired Student t test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and chi-square test.
RESULTS: Scanning duration was significantly longer for extremity MRI (foot, 29.9±5.5 minutes; knee, 30.4±5.6 minutes) than for standard MRI (foot, 21.9±5.0 minutes; knee, 20.5±3.9 minutes) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Acoustic noise reported by the patient was significantly lower on extremity MRI (foot, 1.9±0.9; knee, 2.1±0.7) compared with standard MRI (foot, 2.9±1.0; knee, 2.9±0.8) (p<0.001 for all). Patient satisfaction for both systems was high (1.4-1.6 for all, p=0.2-1.0). Image quality and fat suppression were equally good for both scanners for foot examinations (p≥0.48). Knee examinations generally featured good image quality on both systems, but standard MRI had superior image quality (p≤0.01) and fat suppression (p≤0.001) compared with extremity MRI. More motion artifacts were present on extremity MRI than on standard MRI, which was significant for the knee (p≤0.04) but not for the foot (p≥0.32).
CONCLUSION: Extremity MRI featured less acoustic noise than standard MRI, but examination duration was longer on extremity MRI. Patient satisfaction was high for both scanners. For foot examinations, image quality on extremity MRI was equivalent to standard MRI. Image quality for knee examinations was better on standard MRI compared with extremity MRI, but overall it was good on both systems.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare dedicated extremity MRI and standard large-bore MRI of the lower extremities in the same patients.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine patients (27 feet and 42 knees) were examined both with extremity 1.5-T MRI and standard 1.5-T MRI. Scanning duration was measured, and patients completed a detailed questionnaire after each examination (4-point scale). Two readers assessed image quality parameters. Data were analyzed with the paired Student t test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and chi-square test.
RESULTS: Scanning duration was significantly longer for extremity MRI (foot, 29.9±5.5 minutes; knee, 30.4±5.6 minutes) than for standard MRI (foot, 21.9±5.0 minutes; knee, 20.5±3.9 minutes) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Acoustic noise reported by the patient was significantly lower on extremity MRI (foot, 1.9±0.9; knee, 2.1±0.7) compared with standard MRI (foot, 2.9±1.0; knee, 2.9±0.8) (p<0.001 for all). Patient satisfaction for both systems was high (1.4-1.6 for all, p=0.2-1.0). Image quality and fat suppression were equally good for both scanners for foot examinations (p≥0.48). Knee examinations generally featured good image quality on both systems, but standard MRI had superior image quality (p≤0.01) and fat suppression (p≤0.001) compared with extremity MRI. More motion artifacts were present on extremity MRI than on standard MRI, which was significant for the knee (p≤0.04) but not for the foot (p≥0.32).
CONCLUSION: Extremity MRI featured less acoustic noise than standard MRI, but examination duration was longer on extremity MRI. Patient satisfaction was high for both scanners. For foot examinations, image quality on extremity MRI was equivalent to standard MRI. Image quality for knee examinations was better on standard MRI compared with extremity MRI, but overall it was good on both systems.

Citations

1 citation in Web of Science®
1 citation in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Balgrist University Hospital, Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Center
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:December 2014
Deposited On:18 Feb 2015 15:33
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 18:53
Publisher:American Roentgen Ray Society
ISSN:0361-803X
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12738
PubMed ID:25415708

Download

Full text not available from this repository.View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations