Low-field musculoskeletal MRI
Corresponding Author
Shaya Ghazinoor MD
RadNet, Los Angeles, California, USA
1516 Cotner Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90024Search for more papers by this authorChris Crowley PhD
General Electric Security, Brandenton, FL 34202
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Shaya Ghazinoor MD
RadNet, Los Angeles, California, USA
1516 Cotner Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90024Search for more papers by this authorChris Crowley PhD
General Electric Security, Brandenton, FL 34202
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Since it was first introduced in the field of medical imaging in the early 1980s, MRI has become essential for the diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Most imaging in the United States is performed on high-field (>1.0T), whole-body scanners. However, for reasons discussed below, imaging at low (<0.5T) and medium (0.5–1.0T) field strengths using small, low-cost, easily installed scanners in imaging centers and physicians' offices is gaining increasing popularity. Such scanners can be very useful for imaging the upper and lower extremities, from the shoulder to the fingers and the hips to the toes. In this review we provide an overview of the different available extremity scanners and their advantages and disadvantages, briefly review the literature regarding their use, and discuss our experience in using low-field extremity scanners to evaluate joints. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
REFERENCES
- 1 Hayshi N, Watananbe Y, Masumoto T, et al. Utilization of low-field MR scanners. Magn Reson Med Sci 2004; 3: 27–38.
- 2 Crues J. Extremity scanners. In: RR Edelman, JR Hesselink, MB Zlatkin, JV Cues, editors. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. Vol. 3. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p 3649–3671.
- 3 Crues J, Shellock F, Dardashti S, James T, Troum O. Identification of wrist and metacarpophalangeal joint erosions using a portable magnetic resonance imaging system compared to conventional radiographs. J Rheumatol 2004; 31: 676–685.
- 4 Peterfy C, Roberts T, Genant H. Dedicated extremity MR imaging: an emerging technology. Radiol Clin N Am 1997; 35: 1–20.
- 5 Maubon A, Ferru J, Berger V, et al. Effect of field strength on MR images: comparison of the same subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T. Radiographics 1999; 19: 1057–1067.
- 6 Desai N, Runge V. Contrast use at low field: a review. Topics Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 14: 360–364.
- 7 Merl T, Scholz M, Gerhardt P, et al. Results of a prospective multicenter study for evaluation of the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-field MRI unit. A comparison with high-field MRI measured by the applicable gold standard. Eur J Radiol 1999; 30: 43–53.
- 8 Tung G, Entzian D, Green A, et al. High-field and low-field MR imaging of superior glenoid labral tears and associated tendon injuries. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1107–1114.
- 9 Shellock F, Bert J, Fritts H, Gundry C, Easton R, Crues JR. Evaluation of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using a 0.2-Tesla extremity magnetic resonance (MR) system: MR results compared to surgical findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 14: 763–770.
- 10 Magee T, Shapiro M, Williams D. Comparison of high-field-strength versus low-field-strength MRI of the shoulder. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 1211–1215.
- 11 Zlatkin M, Hoffman C, Shellock F. Assessment of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using an extremity MR system: MR results compared to surgical findings from a multi-center study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 19: 623–631.
- 12 Garneau RA, Renfrew DL, Moore TE, El-Khoury GY, Nepola JV, Lemke JH. Glenoid labrum: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology 1991; 179: 519–522.
- 13 Monu JUV, Pope JrTL, Chabon SJ, Vanarthos WJ. MR diagnosis of superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) injuries of the glenoid labrum: value of routine imaging without intraarticular injection of contrast material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163: 1425–1429.
- 14 Chandnani VP, Yeager TD, DeBerardino T, et al. Glenoid labral tears: evaluation with MR imaging, MR arthrography, and CT arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 1229–1235.
- 15 Flannigan B, Kursunoglu-Brahme S, Snyder S, Karzel R, Del Pizzo W, Resnick D. MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison with conventional MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 155: 829–832.
- 16 Palmer WE, Brown JH, Rosenthal DI. Labral-ligamentous complex of the shoulder: evaluation with MR arthrography. Radiology 1994; 190: 645–651.
- 17 Barnett MJ. MR diagnosis of internal derangement of the knee: effect of field strength on efficacy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 115–118.
- 18 Cevikol C, Karaali K, Esen G, et al. MR imaging of meniscal tears at low-field (0.35 T) and high-field (1.5 T) MR units. Tani Girisim Radyol 2004; 10: 316–319.
- 19 Cotten A, Delfaut E, Demondion X, et al. MR imaging of the knee at 0.2 and 1.5T: correlation with surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1093–1097.
- 20 Franklin P, Lemon R, Barden H. Accuracy of imaging the menisci on an in-office, dedicated, magnetic resonance imaging extremity system. Am J Sports Med 1997; 25: 382–388.
- 21 Kinnunen J, Bondestam S, Kivioja A, et al. Diagnostic performance of low field MRI in acute knee injuries. Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 12: 1155–1160.
- 22 Kladny B, Gluckert K, Swoboda B, et al. Comparison of low-field (0.2 Tesla) and high-field (1.5 Tesla) magnetic resonance imaging of the knee joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1995; 114: 281–286.
- 23 Riel K, Reinisch M, Kerstig-Sommerhoff B, et al. 0.2-T magnetic resonance imaging of internal lesions of the knee joint: a prospective arthroscopically controlled clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1999; 7: 37–41.
- 24 Rutt B, Lee D. The impact of field strength on image quality in MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 6: 57–62.
- 25 Vellet AD, Lee DH, Munk PL, Hewett L, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament tear: Prospective evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of middle- and high-field-strength MR imaging at 1.5 and 0.5 T. Radiology 1995; 197: 826–830.
- 26 Oei EHG, Nikken JJ, Verstijnen ACM, Ginai AZ, Hunink MGM. MR imaging of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Radiology 2003; 226: 837–848.
- 27 Riel K, Kersting-Sommerhoff B, Reinisch M, et al. Prospective comparison of ARTOSCAN-MRI and arthroscopy in knee joint injuries. Z Orthop 1996; 134: 430–434.
- 28 Woertler K, Strothmann M, Tombach B, Reimer P. Detection of articular lesions: experimental evaluation of low and high field strength MR imaging at 0.18 and 1.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 11: 678–685.
- 29 Verhoek G, Zanetti M, Duewell S, Zollinger H, Hodler J. MRI of the foot and ankle: diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of a dedicated low field MR scanner. J Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 8: 711–716.
- 30 Brydle A, Raby N. Early MRI in the management of clinical scaphoid fracture. Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 296–300.
- 31 Breitenseher M, Trattnig S, Gabler C, et al. MRI in radiologically occult scaphoid fractures. Initial experiences with 1.0 Tesla (whole body middle-field equipment) versus 0.2 Tesla (dedicated low-field equipment). Radiologe 1997; 37: 812–818.
- 32 Bretlau T, Christensen O, Edstrom P, Thomsen H, Lausten G. Diagnosis of scaphoid fracture and dedicated extremity MRI. Acta Orthop Scand 1999; 70: 504–508.
- 33 Raby N. Magnetic resonance imaging of suspected scaphoid fractures using a low field dedicated extremity MR system. Clin Radiol 2001; 56: 316–320.