AJR ARRS Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Merkle, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gullotto, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Merkle, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gullotto, C.
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?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.04.1484
AJR 2006; 186:516-521
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

3.0- Versus 1.5-T MR Cholangiography: A Pilot Study

E. M. Merkle1, P. A. Haugan1, J. Thomas1, T. A. Jaffe1 and C. Gullotto1

1 All authors: Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Duke North, Rm. 1417, Erwin Rd., Durham, NC 27710.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate quantitative and qualitative image quality of MR cholangiography at a field strength of 3.0 T compared with the standard field strength of 1.5 T.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A standardized MR cholangiography sequence protocol was used for 15 healthy male volunteers (mean age ± SD, 32.4 ± 4.3 years) who underwent both 1.5- and 3.0-T MRI within 2 hr in an alternating fashion. Dedicated circular polarized torso coils (1.5 and 3.0 T) were used. The sequence protocol included breath-hold single-slice rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement (slice thickness, 50 mm; orientation, coronal and ± 20° oblique coronal); breath-hold multislice HASTE (slice thickness, 3 mm; coronal only); and a non-breath-hold, respiratory-triggered 3D turbo spin-echo (TSE) T2-weighted sequence (slice thickness, 1 mm; 60 slices per slab; coronal only). Maximum intensity projections were generated from each multislice data set. Bile duct (common bile duct, right posterior segmental branch, and left hepatic duct) to periductal tissue contrast-to-noise ratios were compared at 1.5 and 3.0 T. Qualitative image analysis was performed by three independent reviewers. Qualitative analysis included delineation of the extra- and intrahepatic biliary anatomy, with specific attention given to the presence (or absence) of cystic or intrahepatic ductal variants, using a 4-point confidence scale. Statistical analysis consisted of the paired Student's t test and the signed rank test.

RESULTS. Contrast-to-noise ratios between the bile duct and the periductal tissue were higher at 3.0 T in all three locations (common bile duct, right posterior segmental branch, and left hepatic duct). In each magnet class, the 3D TSE sequence offered the best contrast-to-noise ratio and qualitative analysis. Superiority of the 3D TSE sequence was statistically significant in all analyses. Five of the 15 volunteers had intrahepatic biliary variants that were detected with a higher level of confidence (p < 0.01) on the 3.0-T system than on the 1.5-T system.

CONCLUSION. Compared with MR cholangiography at 1.5 T, MR cholangiography at 3.0 T offers improved contrast-to-noise ratio and a higher level of confidence for depicting intrahepatic variants.

Keywords: biliary system • cholangiography • MRI • MR technique


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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
N. I. Sainani, O. A. Catalano, N.-S. Holalkere, A. X. Zhu, P. F. Hahn, and D. V. Sahani
Cholangiocarcinoma: Current and Novel Imaging Techniques
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2008; 28(5): 1263 - 1287.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
C. K. Kuhl, F. Traber, J. Gieseke, W. Drahanowsky, N. Morakkabati-Spitz, W. Willinek, M. von Falkenhausen, C. Manka, and H. H. Schild
Whole-Body High-Field-Strength (3.0-T) MR Imaging in Clinical Practice * Part II. Technical Considerations and Clinical Applications
Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 16 - 35.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
C. M. Haystead, B. M. Dale, and E. M. Merkle
N/2 Ghosting Artifacts: Elimination at 3.0-T MR Cholangiography with SPACE Pulse Sequence
Radiology, February 1, 2008; 246(2): 589 - 595.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
F. M. Akisik, K. Sandrasegaran, A. M. Aisen, C. Lin, and C. Lall
Abdominal MR Imaging at 3.0 T
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2007; 27(5): 1433 - 1444.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
S. I. Sher
Invited Commentary
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2007; 27(5): 1462 - 1464.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.