Frontiers in Musculoskeletal Imaging
3.0 Tesla imaging of the musculoskeletal system
Raymond Kuo MD,
Mahendra Panchal MD,
Larry Tanenbaum MD,
John V. Crues III MD,
Raymond Kuo MD
Radnet Management, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMahendra Panchal MD
Radnet Management, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorLarry Tanenbaum MD
New Jersey Neuroscience Institute, JFK Medical Center, Edison, New Jersey, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
John V. Crues III MD
Radnet Management, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA
Radnet Management, Inc., 1516 Cotner Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90025Search for more papers by this authorRaymond Kuo MD,
Mahendra Panchal MD,
Larry Tanenbaum MD,
John V. Crues III MD,
Raymond Kuo MD
Radnet Management, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMahendra Panchal MD
Radnet Management, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorLarry Tanenbaum MD
New Jersey Neuroscience Institute, JFK Medical Center, Edison, New Jersey, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
John V. Crues III MD
Radnet Management, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA
Radnet Management, Inc., 1516 Cotner Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90025Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
High-field MRI at 3.0T is rapidly gaining clinical acceptance and experiencing more widespread use. The superiority of high-field imaging has clearly been demonstrated for neurological imaging. The impact of 3.0T imaging of the musculoskeletal system has been less dramatic due to complex optimization issues. Areas under consideration include coil technology, protocol modification, artifact reduction, and patient safety. In this article we review these issues and describe our experience with 3.0T musculoskeletal MRI. Fundamentally, an increased signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is responsible for improved imaging at higher field strength. Increased SNR allows more headroom to adjust parameters that affect image resolution and examination time. It has been established that T1 relaxation time increases at 3.0T, while T2 time decreases. Consequently, scanner parameters require adjustment for optimization of images. Chemical shift and magnetic susceptibility artifacts are more pronounced and require special techniques to minimize the effect on image quality. Spectral fat saturation techniques can take advantage of the increased chemical shift. The specific absorption rate (SAR) and acoustic noise thresholds must be kept in mind at these higher fields. We additionally present some of the clinical issues we have experienced at 3.0T. A decision must be made as to whether to trade higher resolution for reduced scanning time. In general, we believe that routine imaging at 3.0T increases diagnostic confidence, especially for evaluations of cartilaginous and ligamentous structures. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
REFERENCES
- 1 Tanenbaum LN. 3T in clinical practice. Appl Radiol 2005; 34: 8–17.
- 2 Lenkinski RE. High-field magnetic resonance imaging. In: H Edelman, MB Zlatkin, JV Crues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd ed., vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 493–511.
- 3 Mugler JPI. Basic principles. In: H Edelman, MB Zlatkin, JV Crues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd ed., vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 23–57.
- 4 Takahashi M, Uematsu H, Hatabu H. MR imaging at high magnetic fields. Eur J Radiol 2003; 46: 45–52.
- 5 Crues IIIJV, Zlatkin MB, Mirowitz SA. Musculoskeletal MRI techniques. In: H Edelman, MB Zlatkin, JV Crues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd ed., vol. 3. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 3119–3145.
- 6 Roemer PB, Edelstein WA, Hayes CE, Souza SP, Meuller OM. The NMR phased array. Magn Reson Med 1990; 16: 192–225.
- 7 Peterson D, Duensing GR, Caserta J, Fitzsimmons JR. An MR transceive phased array design for spinal cord imaging at 3 Tesla: preliminary investigations of spinal cord imaging at 3 T. Invest Radiol 2003; 38: 428–435.
- 8 Pruessmann KP. Parallel imaging at high field strength: synergies and joint potential. Topics Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 15: 237–244.
- 9 McRobbie DW. Parallel imaging unwrapped. SMRT Educ Semin 2005; 8: 5–18.
- 10 Sodickson DK. Parallel imaging methods. In: H Edelman, MB Zlatkin, JV Crues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd ed., vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 231–248.
- 11 Glockner JF, Hu HH, Stanley DW, King K. Parallel MR imaging: a user's guide. Radiographics 2005; 25: 1279–1297.
- 12 Alecci M, Collins CM, Smith MB, et al. Radio frequency magnetic field mapping of a 3 Tesla birdcage coil: experimental and theoretical dependence on sample properties. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46: 379–385.
- 13 Bottomley PA, Andrews ER. RF magnetic field penetration, phase shift, and power dissipation in biological tissue: implications for NMR imaging. Phys Med Biol 1978; 23: 630–643.
- 14 Gold GE, Han E, Stainsby J, Wright G, Brittain J, Beaulieu C. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 343–351.
- 15 Hashemi RH, Bradley IIIWG. Tissue contrast: some clinical applications. MRI the basics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1997. p 58–66.
- 16 Bottomley PA, Foster TH, Argersinger RE, Pfeifer LM. A review of normal tissue hydroger NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1–100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. Med Phys 1984; 11: 425–448.
- 17 Gold GE, Suh B, Sawyer-Glover A, Beaulieu C. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: Initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 1479–1486.
- 18 Eckstein F, Charles HC, Buck RJ, et al. Accuracy and precision of quantitative assessment of cartilage morphology by magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0T. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52: 3132–3136.
- 19 Norris DG. High field human imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 18: 519–529.
- 20 Erickson SJ, Prost RW, Timins ME. The “magic angle” effect: background physics and clinical relevance. Radiology 1993; 188: 23–25.
- 21 Storey P. Artifacts and solutions. In: H Edelman, MB Zlatkin, JV Crues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd ed., vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 577–629.
- 22 Mosher TJ, Smith H, Dardzinski BJ, Schmithorst VJ, Smith MB. MR imaging and T2 mapping of femoral cartilage: in vivo determination of the magic angle effect. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 665–669.
- 23 Bernstein MA, Huston JI, Lin C, Gibbs GF, Felmlee JP. High-resolution intracranial and cervical MRA at 3.0T: technical considerations and initial experience. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46: 955–962.
- 24 Campeau NG, Huston J, Bernstein MA, Lin C, Gibbs GF. Magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla: initial clinical experience. Topics Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 12: 183–204.
- 25 Leiner T, de Vries M, Hoogeveen R, et al. Contrast-enhanced peripheral MR angiography at 3.0 Tesla: initial experience with a whole-body scanner in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 17: 609–614.
- 26 Boesch C. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy: basic principles. In: H Edelman, MB Zlatkin, JV Crues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance. 3rd ed., vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 459–492.
- 27 Fayad LM, Bluemke DA, McCarthy EF, Weber KL, Barker PB, Jacobs MA. Musculoskeletal tumors: use of proton MR spectroscopic imaging for characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 23: 23–28.
- 28 Bradley WG, Kortman KE, Crues JV. Central nervous system high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging: effect of increasing spatial resolution on resolving power. Radiology 1985; 156: 93–98.
- 29 Craig JG, Go L, Blechinger J, et al. Three-tesla imaging of the knee: Initial experience. Skeletal Radiol 2005; 34: 453–461.
- 30 Constable RT, Gore JC. The loss of small objects in variable TE imaging: implications for FSE, RARE, and EPI. Magn Reson Med 1992; 28: 9–24.
- 31 Kowalchuk RM, Kneeland JB, Dalinka MK, Siegelman ES, Dockery WD. MRI of the knee: Value of short echo time fast spin-echo using high performance gradients vs. conventional spin-echo imaging for the detection of meniscal rears. Skeletal Radiol 2000; 29: 520–524.
- 32 Rybicki FJ, Chung T, Reid J, Jaramillo D, Mulkern RV, Ma J. Fast three-point Dixon MR imaging using low-resolution images for phase correction: a comparison with chemical shift selective fat suppression for pediatric musculoskeletal imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 1019–1023.
- 33 Bydder GM, Pennock JM, Steiner RE, Khenia S, Payne JA, Young IR. The short TI inversion recovery sequence—an approach to MR imaging of the abdomen. Magn Reson Imaging 1985; 3: 251–254.
- 34 Hauger O, Dumont E, Chateil J, Moinard M, Diard F. Water excitation as an alternative to fat saturation in MR imaging: preliminary results in musculoskeletal imaging. Radiology 2002; 224: 657–663.
- 35 Delfaut EM, Beltran J, Johnson G, Rousseau J, Marchandise X, Cotten A. Fat suppression in MR imaging: techniques and pitfalls. Radiographics 1999; 19: 373–382.
- 36 Korobkin M, Lombardi TJ, et al. Characterization of adrenal masses with chemical shift and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1995; 197: 411–418.
- 37 Disler DG, McCauley TR, Ratner LM, Kesack CD, Cooper JA. In-phase and out-of-phase MR imaging of bone marrow: prediction of neoplasia on the detection of coexistent fat and water. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169: 1439–1447.
- 38 Eito K, Waka S, Naoko N, Makoto A, Atsuko H. Vertebral neoplastic compression fractures: assessment by dual-phase chemical shift imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20: 1020–1024.
- 39 Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser MF. Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma: assessment of focal and diffuse growth patterns in marrow correlated with biopsies and survival rates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167: 1029–1036.
- 40 Axel L, Kolman L, Charafeddine R, Hwang SN, Stolpen AH. Origin of a signal intensity loss artifact in fat-saturation MR imaging. Radiology 2000; 217: 911–915.
- 41 Hashemi RH, Bradley IIIWG. Basic principles of MRI. MRI the basics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1997. p 17–31.
- 42 Purcell EM. Magnetic susceptibility. Electricity and magnetism. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1965. p 380–381.
- 43 Babcock EE, Brateman L, Weinreb JC, Horner SD, Nunnally RL. Edge artifacts in MR images: chemical shift effect. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1985; 9: 252–257.
- 44 Olsrud J, Latt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Bjorkman-Burtscher IM. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: 433–437.
- 45 Peh WCG, Chan JHM. Artifacts in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging: identification and correction. Skeletal Radiol 2001; 30: 179–191.
- 46 Smith RC, Lange RC, McCarthy SM. Chemical shift artifact: dependence on shape and orientation of the lipid-water interface. Radiology 1991; 181: 225–229.
- 47 Suh J, Jeong E, Shin K, et al. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 1207–1213.
- 48 Frazzini VI, Kagetsu NJ, Johnson CE, Destian S. Internally stabilized spine: Optimal choice of frequency-encoding gradient direction during MR imaging minimizes susceptibility artifact from titanium vertebral body screws. Radiology 1997; 204: 268–272.
- 49 Kolind SH, MacKay AL, Munk PL, Xiang QS. Quantitative evaluation of metal artifact reduction techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20: 487–495.
- 50 Tartaglino LM, Flanders AE, Vinitski S, et al. Metal artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology 1994; 190: 565–569.
- 51 Kruger G, Kastup A, Glover GH. Neuroimaging at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of oxygenation-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2001; 45: 595–604.
- 52 Uludag K, Dubowitz DJ, Buxton RB. Basic principles of functional MRI. In: H Edelman, MB Zlatkin, JV Crues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd edition. Volume 1. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 249–287.
- 53 Noseworthy MD, Bulte DP, Alfonsi J. BOLD magnetic resonance imaging of skeletal muscle. Semin Musculoskeletal Radiol 2003; 7: 307–315.
- 54 Li D, Dhawale P, Rubin PJ, Haacke EM, Gropler RJ. Myocardial signal response to dipyridamole and dobutamine: demonstration of the BOLD effect using a double-echo gradient-echo sequence. Magn Reson Med 1996; 36: 16–20.
- 55 Niemi P, Poncelet BP, Kwong KK, et al. Myocardial intensity changes associated with flow stimulation in blood oxygenation sensitive magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 1996; 36: 78–82.
- 56 Fera F, Yongbi MN, van Gerlderen P, Frank JA, Mattay VS, Duyn JH. EPI-BOLD fMRI of human motor cortex at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: sensitivity dependence on echo time and acquisition bandwidth. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 19: 19–26.
- 57 Caravan P, Lauffer RB. Contrast agents: basic principles. In: H Edelman, MB Zlatkin, JV Crues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd ed., vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 358–376.
- 58 Elster AD. How much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 276–280.
- 59 Manka C, Traber F, Gieseke J, Schild HH, Kuhl CK. Three-dimensional dynamic susceptibility-weighted perfusion MR imaging at 3.0 T: feasibility and contrast agent dose. Radiology 2005; 234: 869–877.
- 60 Krautmacher C, Willinek WA, Tschampa HJ, et al. Brain tumors: full and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T: initial experience. Radiology 2005; 237: 1014–1019.
- 61 Shellock FG, Crues JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology 2004; 232: 635–652.
- 62 Prost JE, Wehrli FW, Drayer B, Froelich J, Hearshen D, Plewes D. SAR reduced pulse sequences. Magn Reson Imaging 1988; 6: 125–130.
- 63 Saupe N, Prussmann KP, Luechinger R, Bosiger P, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR imaging of the wrist: comparison between 1.5- and 3-T MR imaging—preliminary experience. Radiology 2005; 234: 256–264.
- 64 Foster JR, Hall DA, Summerfield AQ, et al. Sound-level measurements and calculations of safe noise dosage during EPI at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12: 157–163.
- 65 Chakeres DW, Bornstein R, Kangarlu A. Randomized comparison of cognitive function in humans at 0 and 8 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 18: 342–345.
- 66 Chakeres DW, Kangarlu A, Boudoulas H, Young DC. Effect of static magnetic field exposure of up to 8 Tesla on sequential human vital sign measurement. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 18: 346–352.
- 67 Kanal E, Borgstede JP, Barkovich AJ, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on MR safety: 2004 update and revisions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182: 1111–1114.
- 68 Chalijub G, Kramer LA, Johnson IIIRF, Johnson JrRF, Singh H, Crow WN. Projectile cylinder accidents resulting from the presence of ferromagnetic nitrous oxide or oxygen tanks in the MR suite. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 27–30.
- 69 Baker KB, Nyenhuis JA, Hrdlicka G, Rezai AR, Tkach JA, Shellock FG. Neurostimulation systems: assessment of magnetic field interactions associated with 1.5- and 3-Tesla systems. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 21: 72–77.
- 70 Edwards M, Ordidge RJ, Hand JW, Taylor KM, Young IR. Assessment of magnetic field (4.7 T) induced forces on prosthetic heart valves and annuloplasty rings. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: 311–317.
- 71 Muhler MR. Can intrauterine devices actually be considered safe at 3-T MR imaging? Radiology 2005; 235: 709.
- 72 Shellock FG. Magnetic resonance bioeffects, safety, and patient management. In: H Edelman, MB Zlatkin, JV Crues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd ed., vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 647–671.
- 73 Link TM, Sell CA, Masi JN, et al. 3.0 vs 1.5 T MRI in detection of focal cartilage pathology—ROC analysis in an experimental model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006; 14: 63–70.
- 74 Masi JN, Sell CA, Phan C, et al. Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 vs. that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model. Radiology 2005; 236: 150–150.
- 75 Fischbach F, Bruhn H, Unterhauser F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of hyaline cartilage defects at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of medium T2-weighted fast spin echo, T1-weighted two-dimensional and three dimensional gradient echo pulse sequences. Acta Radiol 2005; 46: 67–73.
- 76 Suan JC, Chhem RK, Gati JS, Norley CJ, Holdsworth DW. 4 T MRI of chondrocalcinosis in combination with three-dimensional CT, radiography, and arthroscopy: a report of three cases. Skeletal Radiol 2005; 34: 714–721.
- 77 Lin C, Bernstein MA, Gibbs GF, Huston J. Reduction of RF power for magnetization transfer with optimized application of RF pulses in k-space. Magn Reson Med 2003; 50: 114–121.
Citing Literature
