Volume 29, Issue 1 pp. 141-145
Original Research

Clinical evaluation of automated scan prescription of knee MR images

Frederic E. Lecouvet MD, PhD

Corresponding Author

Frederic E. Lecouvet MD, PhD

Department of Medical Imaging, Cliniques Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Brussels, Belgium

Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Department of Medical Imaging, Hippocrate Avenue 10/2942, 1200 Brussels, BelgiumSearch for more papers by this author
Jérôme Claus MD

Jérôme Claus MD

Department of Medical Imaging, Cliniques Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Brussels, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
Patrick Schmitz RT

Patrick Schmitz RT

Department of Medical Imaging, Cliniques Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Brussels, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
Vincent Denolin PhD

Vincent Denolin PhD

Philips Medical Systems, Best, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Clemens Bos PhD

Clemens Bos PhD

Philips Medical Systems, Best, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Bruno C. Vande Berg MD, PhD

Bruno C. Vande Berg MD, PhD

Department of Medical Imaging, Cliniques Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Brussels, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 18 December 2008
Citations: 9

Abstract

Purpose

To compare an automated scan planning method to manual scan positioning in routine knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies.

Materials and Methods

The automated scan planning method uses anatomical landmarks in a 3D survey of the knee. The method is trained by example plannings, consisting of manual slice positioning by an experienced technologist in 15 MRI studies. Automated knee MR examinations obtained in three geometries in 50 consecutive patients were compared to those obtained in 50 consecutive control patients, where imaging planes were planned manually. Anatomical coverage and slice angulation were scored for each geometry on a 4-grade scale by an experienced radiologist blinded to the way of planning; groups were compared using a Mann–Whitney U-test.

Results

In 150 automated sequences the technologist adapted slice positioning in four cases (addition of slices to adapt to the size of the knee), representing the only automated sequences that received a poor rating. Thirteen sequences with manual planning received a poor rating. No difference in quality was found (P > 0.05) between automated and manual plannings for coronal coverage, sagittal coverage and angulation, and transverse angulation. Rating of automated planning was higher for transverse coverage, but lower than manual planning for coronal angulation.

Conclusion

Automated sequence prescription for knee MRI is feasible in clinical practice, with similar quality as manual positioning. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;29:141–145. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.