HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Merkle, E. M. Articles by Dale, B. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Merkle, E. M. Articles by Dale, B. M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: The Basics Revisited

¹ Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Duke North, Rm. 1417, Box 3808, Erwin Rd., Durham, NC 27710.
² Siemens Medical Solutions, USA, Cary, NC 27519.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our article is to describe the underlying physics concepts of abdominal MRI at 3.0 T and their impact on signal-to-noise ratio, susceptibility artifacts, chemical shift artifacts, and dielectric effects.

CONCLUSION. Abdominal MR sequence protocols optimized for 1.5-T scanners should not be transferred to 3.0 T without substantial modification. In addition, specific patient groups—for example, large patients with ascites—are not well suited to undergo an abdominal MRI study at 3.0 T.

Keywords: abdominal imaging • field strength • MRI • MRI technique • physics

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Hori, T. Kim, T. Murakami, I. Imaoka, H. Onishi, K. Tomoda, T. Tsutsui, T. Enomoto, T. Kimura, and H. Nakamura Uterine Cervical Carcinoma: Preoperative Staging with 3.0-T MR Imaging--Comparison with 1.5-T MR Imaging Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 96 - 104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. T. Schindera, B. J. Soher, D. M. Delong, B. M. Dale, and E. M. Merkle Effect of Echo Time Pair Selection on Quantitative Analysis for Adrenal Tumor Characterization with In-Phase and Opposed-Phase MR Imaging: Initial Experience Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 140 - 147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				M. M. Barth, M. P. Smith, I. Pedrosa, R. E. Lenkinski, and N. M. Rofsky Body MR Imaging at 3.0 T: Understanding the Opportunities and Challenges RadioGraphics, September 1, 2007; 27(5): 1445 - 1462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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