AJR Get Involved! Join ARRS Today
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gazelle, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Halpern, E. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gazelle, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Halpern, E. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 163, 335-337, Copyright © 1994 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

MR imaging of the liver at 1.5 T: value of signal averaging in suppressing motion artifacts

GS Gazelle, S Saini, PF Hahn, MA Goldberg and EF Halpern
Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02114.

OBJECTIVE. Prior reports have suggested that signal averaging is not as effective as phase reordering for suppressing motion-related artifacts on T1-weighted spin-echo MR imaging of the liver at high field strengths. We hypothesized that with shorter TEs, signal averaging could be effective, and therefore undertook this study to compare signal averaging with phase reordering at 1.5T. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Thirty consecutive patients underwent MR imaging of the liver at 1.5 T with two T1-weighted spin-echo pulse sequences. In one sequence we used signal averaging and in the other we used phase reordering as the primary motion suppression techniques. For each patient, the order in which these sequences were performed was randomized; TR (400-500 msec), TE (11-12 msec), and field of view (32-34 cm) remained constant. Images were analyzed quantitatively for liver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), liver-spleen contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and liver-lesion CNR (in 16 patients with focal liver lesions), as well as qualitatively (three observers, blinded to technique) for overall image quality. RESULTS. Signal averaging resulted in images with significantly greater liver SNR, liver-spleen CNR, and liver-lesion CNR than did phase reordering (p = .0001, .002, and .02, respectively). All observers showed a preference for the signal-averaged images. For one observer, this preference was statistically significant; for the others, it was not. CONCLUSION. Signal averaging can be an effective means of suppressing motion-related artifacts on T1-weighted MR images of the liver obtained at 1.5 T.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.