HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Maubon, A. J. Articles by Rouanet, J.-P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Maubon, A. J. Articles by Rouanet, J.-P. Related Collections Magnetic Resonance Imaging Physics and Basic Science

Effect of Field Strength on MR Images: Comparison of the Same Subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Centre Medico-chirurgical Beausoleil, 119 Avenue de Lodève, 34000 Montpellier, France (A.J.M., J.M.F., V.B., M.C.S., M.D., J.P.R.); the Department of Medical Information, Centre Hospitalo Universitaire Montpellier, France (P.A.); and Philips Medical Systems, Paris, France (P.C., E.D.). Presented as a scientific exhibit at the 1997 RSNA scientific assembly. Received May 1, 1998; revision requested June 23; final revision received February 8, 1999; accepted February 12. Address reprint requests to A.J.M.

To assess the effect of field strength on magnetic resonance (MR) images, the same healthy subject was imaged at three field strengths: 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T. Imaging was performed with three similarly equipped MR imagers of the same generation and from the same manufacturer. The same imaging sequences were used with identical parameters and without repetition time correction for field strength. Imaging was performed in four anatomic locations: the brain, lumbar spine, knee, and abdomen. Quantitative image analysis involved calculation of signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and relative contrast; qualitative image analysis was performed by four readers blinded to field strength. The results of all of the examinations were considered to be of diagnostic value. In general, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were lowest at 0.5 T and highest at 1.5 T; relative contrast was not related to field strength. At qualitative analysis, images obtained at 1.0 and 1.5 T were superior to images obtained at 0.5 T; qualitative differences were less important in locations where there is motion or high magnetic susceptibility differences between tissues (eg, the spine and abdomen). However, excellent image quality was obtained with all three field strengths.

Index Terms: Magnetic resonance (MR), high-field-strength imaging, **.12141² • Magnetic resonance (MR), low-field-strength imaging, **.12141

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. G. Steen, T. Emudianughe, G. M. Hankins, L. W. Wynn, W. C. Wang, X. Xiong, and K. J. Helton Brain Imaging Findings in Pediatric Patients with Sickle Cell Disease Radiology, July 1, 2003; 228(1): 216 - 225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Salomonowitz MR Imaging-Guided Biopsy and Therapeutic Intervention in a Closed-Configuration Magnet: Single-Center Series of 361 Punctures Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2001; 177(1): 159 - 163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A. Binkert, M. Zanetti, C. Gerber, and J. Hodler MR Arthrography of the Glenohumeral Joint: Two Concentrations of Gadoteridol versus Ringer Solution as the Intraarticular Contrast Material Radiology, July 1, 2001; 220(1): 219 - 224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]