No abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess patient comfort when imaged on a newly introduced 0.55T low-field magnetic resonance (MR) scanner system with a wider bore opening compared to a conventional 1.5T MR scanner system. Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, fifty patients (mean age: 66.2 ± 17.0 years, 22 females, 28 males) underwent subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations with matched imaging protocols at 0.55T (MAGNETOM FreeMax, Siemens Healthineers; Erlangen, Germany) and 1.5T (MAGNETOM Avanto Fit, Siemens Healthineers; Erlangen, Germany) on the same day. MRI performed between 05/2021 and 07/2021 was included for analysis. The 0.55T MRI system had a bore opening of 80 cm, while the bore diameter of the 1.5T scanner system was 60 cm. Four patient groups were defined by imaged body regions: (1) cranial or cervical spine MRI using a head/neck coil (n = 27), (2) lumbar or thoracic spine MRI using only the in-table spine coils (n = 10), (3) hip MRI using a large flex coil (n = 8) and (4) upper- or lower-extremity MRI using small flex coils (n = 5). Following the MRI examinations, patients evaluated (1) sense of space, (2) noise level, (3) comfort, (4) coil comfort and (5) overall examination impression on a 5-point Likert-scale (range: 1= “much worse” to 5 = “much better”) using a questionnaire. Maximum noise levels of all performed imaging studies were measured in decibels (dB) by a sound level meter placed in the bore center. Results: Sense of space was perceived to be “better” or “much better” by 84% of patients for imaging examinations performed on the 0.55T MRI scanner system (mean score: 4.34 ± 0.75). Additionally, 84% of patients rated noise levels as “better” or “much better” when imaged on the low-field scanner system (mean score: 3.90 ± 0.61). Overall sensation during the imaging examination at 0.55T was rated as “better” or “much better” by 78% of patients (mean score: 3.96 ± 0.70). Quantitative assessment showed significantly reduced maximum noise levels for all 0.55T MRI studies, regardless of body region compared to 1.5T, i.e., brain MRI (83.8 ± 3.6 dB vs. 89.3 ± 5.4 dB; p = 0.04), spine MRI (83.7 ± 3.7 dB vs. 89.4 ± 2.6 dB; p = 0.004) and hip MRI (86.3 ± 5.0 dB vs. 89.1 ± 1.4 dB; p = 0.04). Conclusions: Patients perceived 0.55T new-generation low-field MRI to be more comfortable than conventional 1.5T MRI, given its larger bore opening and reduced noise levels during image acquisition. Therefore, new concepts regarding bore design and noise level reduction of MR scanner systems may help to reduce patient anxiety and improve well-being when undergoing MR imaging.

To compare fat fraction (FF) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) as discriminators distinguishing malignant from acute/subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Method: 1.5 T MRIs of 42 malignant and 27 acute/subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures (38 patients) were retrospectively reviewed. Two readers independently classified fractures as malignant or osteoporotic based on conventional imaging morphology. Diagnostic reader confidence was rated as confident or not confident. FF was derived from axial T1 gradient-echo 2-point Dixon MRI. ADC maps were calculated from axial b50 and b900 images. Both readers independently performed ROI measurements of mean FF and ADC of the same fractured vertebrae. FF and ADC values, corresponding ROC curves and optimized cut-off value performance were compared. Inter-reader agreement was analysed by calculation of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). A pvalue < 0.05 was deemed significant. Results: Mean FF and ADC were significantly lower in malignant (9.5 % and 1.05 × 10 − 3 mm 2 /s) compared to osteoporotic fractures (32 % and 1.34 × 10 − 3 mm 2 /s, all p < 0.001). The optimal cut-off FF was 11.5 %, detecting malignant fractures with 86 %/89 % sensitivity/specificity. The optimal ADC cut-off of 1.04 × 10 − 3 mm/s 2 yielded 62 %/96 % sensitivity/specificity. FF AUC (0.93) was significantly larger than ADC AUC (0.82, p = 0.03). In the subgroup of nine cases reported with low expert reader confidence, the optimized cut-off specificities of FF (83 %) and ADC (83 %) exceeded reader specificity (50 %). There was excellent interreader agreement for mean FF (ICC = 0.99) and good agreement for mean ADC (ICC = 0.86) measurements. Conclusion: FF and ADC can improve reader specificity to distinguish between malignant and acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures. As single discriminator, FF was superior to ADC.

No abstract