Cargando…

Does bore size matter?—A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the subjectively perceived patient comfort during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations and to assess potential differences between a recently introduced low field MRI scanner and a standard MRI scanner. Among other characteristics, the low fi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michael, Arwed Elias, Heuser, Andreas, Moenninghoff, Christoph, Surov, Alexey, Borggrefe, Jan, Kroeger, Jan Robert, Niehoff, Julius Henning
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10681562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38013308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000036069
_version_ 1785150818441232384
author Michael, Arwed Elias
Heuser, Andreas
Moenninghoff, Christoph
Surov, Alexey
Borggrefe, Jan
Kroeger, Jan Robert
Niehoff, Julius Henning
author_facet Michael, Arwed Elias
Heuser, Andreas
Moenninghoff, Christoph
Surov, Alexey
Borggrefe, Jan
Kroeger, Jan Robert
Niehoff, Julius Henning
author_sort Michael, Arwed Elias
collection PubMed
description The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the subjectively perceived patient comfort during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations and to assess potential differences between a recently introduced low field MRI scanner and a standard MRI scanner. Among other characteristics, the low field MRI scanner differs from the standard MRI scanner by offering more space (wider bore size of 80 centimeter diameter) and producing less noise, which may influence the patient comfort. In total, 177 patients were surveyed after MRI scans with either the low field MRI scanner (n = 91, MAGNETOM Free.Max, Siemens Healthineers) or the standard MRI scanner (n = 86, MAGNETOM Avanto Fit, Siemens Healthineers). Patients rated different aspects of comfort on a 5 point Likert scale: (a) claustrophobia, (b) comfort of the scanner table, (c) noise level and (d) vertigo during the scanning procedure. In terms of claustrophobia and comfort of the scanner table, patients rated both MRI scanners similar (e.g., mean ratings for claustrophobia: standard MRI scanner = 4.63 ± 1.04, low field MRI scanner = 4.65 ± 1.02). However, when asked for a comparison, patients did favor the more spacious low field MRI scanner. In terms of noise level, the low field MRI scanner was rated significantly better (mean ratings: standard MRI scanner = 3.72 ± 1.46 [median 4 = “rather not unpleasant”], low field MRI scanner = 4.26 ± 1.22 [median 5 = “not unpleasant at all”]). Patients did not perceive any significant difference in terms of vertigo between both MRI scanners. The newly developed low field MRI scanner offers constructional differences compared to standard MRI scanners that are perceived positively by patients. Worth highlighting is the significantly lower noise level and the innovative bore diameter of 80 centimeter, which offers more space to the patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10681562
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106815622023-11-24 Does bore size matter?—A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging Michael, Arwed Elias Heuser, Andreas Moenninghoff, Christoph Surov, Alexey Borggrefe, Jan Kroeger, Jan Robert Niehoff, Julius Henning Medicine (Baltimore) 6800 The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the subjectively perceived patient comfort during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations and to assess potential differences between a recently introduced low field MRI scanner and a standard MRI scanner. Among other characteristics, the low field MRI scanner differs from the standard MRI scanner by offering more space (wider bore size of 80 centimeter diameter) and producing less noise, which may influence the patient comfort. In total, 177 patients were surveyed after MRI scans with either the low field MRI scanner (n = 91, MAGNETOM Free.Max, Siemens Healthineers) or the standard MRI scanner (n = 86, MAGNETOM Avanto Fit, Siemens Healthineers). Patients rated different aspects of comfort on a 5 point Likert scale: (a) claustrophobia, (b) comfort of the scanner table, (c) noise level and (d) vertigo during the scanning procedure. In terms of claustrophobia and comfort of the scanner table, patients rated both MRI scanners similar (e.g., mean ratings for claustrophobia: standard MRI scanner = 4.63 ± 1.04, low field MRI scanner = 4.65 ± 1.02). However, when asked for a comparison, patients did favor the more spacious low field MRI scanner. In terms of noise level, the low field MRI scanner was rated significantly better (mean ratings: standard MRI scanner = 3.72 ± 1.46 [median 4 = “rather not unpleasant”], low field MRI scanner = 4.26 ± 1.22 [median 5 = “not unpleasant at all”]). Patients did not perceive any significant difference in terms of vertigo between both MRI scanners. The newly developed low field MRI scanner offers constructional differences compared to standard MRI scanners that are perceived positively by patients. Worth highlighting is the significantly lower noise level and the innovative bore diameter of 80 centimeter, which offers more space to the patients. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10681562/ /pubmed/38013308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000036069 Text en Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle 6800
Michael, Arwed Elias
Heuser, Andreas
Moenninghoff, Christoph
Surov, Alexey
Borggrefe, Jan
Kroeger, Jan Robert
Niehoff, Julius Henning
Does bore size matter?—A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging
title Does bore size matter?—A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging
title_full Does bore size matter?—A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging
title_fullStr Does bore size matter?—A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging
title_full_unstemmed Does bore size matter?—A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging
title_short Does bore size matter?—A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging
title_sort does bore size matter?—a comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 tesla) and standard (1.5 tesla) mri imaging
topic 6800
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10681562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38013308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000036069
work_keys_str_mv AT michaelarwedelias doesboresizematteracomparisonofthesubjectiveperceptionofpatientcomfortduringlowfield055teslaandstandard15teslamriimaging
AT heuserandreas doesboresizematteracomparisonofthesubjectiveperceptionofpatientcomfortduringlowfield055teslaandstandard15teslamriimaging
AT moenninghoffchristoph doesboresizematteracomparisonofthesubjectiveperceptionofpatientcomfortduringlowfield055teslaandstandard15teslamriimaging
AT surovalexey doesboresizematteracomparisonofthesubjectiveperceptionofpatientcomfortduringlowfield055teslaandstandard15teslamriimaging
AT borggrefejan doesboresizematteracomparisonofthesubjectiveperceptionofpatientcomfortduringlowfield055teslaandstandard15teslamriimaging
AT kroegerjanrobert doesboresizematteracomparisonofthesubjectiveperceptionofpatientcomfortduringlowfield055teslaandstandard15teslamriimaging
AT niehoffjuliushenning doesboresizematteracomparisonofthesubjectiveperceptionofpatientcomfortduringlowfield055teslaandstandard15teslamriimaging