Cargando…

Comparison between 2D and 3D MEDIC for human cervical spinal cord MRI at 3T

INTRODUCTION: High‐resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spinal cord is important to provide accurate diagnosis and pathological assessment of injuries. MEDIC (Multiple Echo Data Image Combination) sequences have been used in clinical MRI; however, a comparison of the performan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Asiri, Abdullah, Dimpudus, Franky, Atcheson, Nicole, Al‐Najjar, Aiman, McMahon, Katie, Kurniawan, Nyoman D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7890925/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32931647
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.433
_version_ 1783652598116515840
author Asiri, Abdullah
Dimpudus, Franky
Atcheson, Nicole
Al‐Najjar, Aiman
McMahon, Katie
Kurniawan, Nyoman D.
author_facet Asiri, Abdullah
Dimpudus, Franky
Atcheson, Nicole
Al‐Najjar, Aiman
McMahon, Katie
Kurniawan, Nyoman D.
author_sort Asiri, Abdullah
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: High‐resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spinal cord is important to provide accurate diagnosis and pathological assessment of injuries. MEDIC (Multiple Echo Data Image Combination) sequences have been used in clinical MRI; however, a comparison of the performance of 2D and 3D MEDIC for cervical spinal cord imaging has not been reported. The aim of this study is to compare axial 2D and 3D MEDIC for the visualisation of the grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) of the human cervical spinal cord. METHODS: Eight healthy participants were scanned using Siemens Prisma(fit) 3T MRI. T2*‐weighted gradient spoiled 2D and 3D MEDIC sequences were acquired at 0.4 × 0.4 × 3.0 and 0.3 × 0.3 × 3.0 mm resolutions, with the acquisition times of 6 and 7 min, respectively. Quantitative analyses of the images were made based on the image signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) and non‐uniformity (NU). Two independent radiologists (CS and FN), each provided Likert scoring assessments of anatomical visibility of the GM and WM structures and image clarity for all samples. RESULTS: Quantitative evaluation showed that 3D MEDIC provided higher SNR, higher CNR and lower NU than 2D MEDIC. However, 2D MEDIC provided better anatomical visibility for the GM, WM and CSF, and higher image clarity (lower artefacts) compared to 3D MEDIC. CONCLUSIONS: 2D MEDIC provides better information for depicting the internal structures of the cervical spinal cord compared to 3D MEDIC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7890925
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78909252021-03-10 Comparison between 2D and 3D MEDIC for human cervical spinal cord MRI at 3T Asiri, Abdullah Dimpudus, Franky Atcheson, Nicole Al‐Najjar, Aiman McMahon, Katie Kurniawan, Nyoman D. J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: High‐resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spinal cord is important to provide accurate diagnosis and pathological assessment of injuries. MEDIC (Multiple Echo Data Image Combination) sequences have been used in clinical MRI; however, a comparison of the performance of 2D and 3D MEDIC for cervical spinal cord imaging has not been reported. The aim of this study is to compare axial 2D and 3D MEDIC for the visualisation of the grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) of the human cervical spinal cord. METHODS: Eight healthy participants were scanned using Siemens Prisma(fit) 3T MRI. T2*‐weighted gradient spoiled 2D and 3D MEDIC sequences were acquired at 0.4 × 0.4 × 3.0 and 0.3 × 0.3 × 3.0 mm resolutions, with the acquisition times of 6 and 7 min, respectively. Quantitative analyses of the images were made based on the image signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) and non‐uniformity (NU). Two independent radiologists (CS and FN), each provided Likert scoring assessments of anatomical visibility of the GM and WM structures and image clarity for all samples. RESULTS: Quantitative evaluation showed that 3D MEDIC provided higher SNR, higher CNR and lower NU than 2D MEDIC. However, 2D MEDIC provided better anatomical visibility for the GM, WM and CSF, and higher image clarity (lower artefacts) compared to 3D MEDIC. CONCLUSIONS: 2D MEDIC provides better information for depicting the internal structures of the cervical spinal cord compared to 3D MEDIC. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-09-15 2021-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7890925/ /pubmed/32931647 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.433 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Asiri, Abdullah
Dimpudus, Franky
Atcheson, Nicole
Al‐Najjar, Aiman
McMahon, Katie
Kurniawan, Nyoman D.
Comparison between 2D and 3D MEDIC for human cervical spinal cord MRI at 3T
title Comparison between 2D and 3D MEDIC for human cervical spinal cord MRI at 3T
title_full Comparison between 2D and 3D MEDIC for human cervical spinal cord MRI at 3T
title_fullStr Comparison between 2D and 3D MEDIC for human cervical spinal cord MRI at 3T
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between 2D and 3D MEDIC for human cervical spinal cord MRI at 3T
title_short Comparison between 2D and 3D MEDIC for human cervical spinal cord MRI at 3T
title_sort comparison between 2d and 3d medic for human cervical spinal cord mri at 3t
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7890925/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32931647
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.433
work_keys_str_mv AT asiriabdullah comparisonbetween2dand3dmedicforhumancervicalspinalcordmriat3t
AT dimpudusfranky comparisonbetween2dand3dmedicforhumancervicalspinalcordmriat3t
AT atchesonnicole comparisonbetween2dand3dmedicforhumancervicalspinalcordmriat3t
AT alnajjaraiman comparisonbetween2dand3dmedicforhumancervicalspinalcordmriat3t
AT mcmahonkatie comparisonbetween2dand3dmedicforhumancervicalspinalcordmriat3t
AT kurniawannyomand comparisonbetween2dand3dmedicforhumancervicalspinalcordmriat3t