Comparison of image quality characteristics on Silent MR<i>versus</i>conventional MR imaging of brain lesions at 3 Tesla

Ohlmann-Knafo, Susanne; Morlo, Melanie; Tárnoki, Dávid László; Tárnoki, Ádám Domonkos; Grabowski, Blazej; Kaspar, Melanie; Pickuth, Dirk

doi:10.1259/bjr.20150801

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…26 Other studies have reported a minor decrease in SNR and/or CNR using ANR software than its conventional equivalents, although not affecting the diagnostic value in qualitative assessments by radiologists. 4,28,36 Alternatively, Ohlmann-Knafo et al 24 reported superior image quality using ANR T1W and T2W sequences; however, protocol parameters differed somewhat between the conventional and ANR versions, which could possibly have influenced the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, we did not calculate power prior to data sampling, but decided to include 40 participants based on comparison of studies with similar designs. 5,13,24 Another limitation is that QS and WM are only applicable on a Siemens MR system. Even between two different Siemens systems or within different field strengths, eg 1.5 T and 3 T, it is possible that other results would occur.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors have studied gradient waveform optimization for noise reduction and its effect on image quality, 4,13,14,[22][23][24][25] yet, there is limited knowledge about gradient field exposure in this context. 18 Previous ANR research has been focused on head MRI.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 Previous ANR research has been focused on head MRI. 3,13,14,17,24,[26][27][28] However, spinal MRI constitutes some of the most common clinical exams 29 and the performance of ANR techniques for imaging of the spine is not well known. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to evaluate SPLs, image quality, switched gradient field exposure, and participants' perceived noise levels during two different ANR techniques, QS and WM, and to compare them with conventional T2-weighted turbo spin echo (T2W TSE) of the lumbar spine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous ANR research has been focused on head MRI 3,13,14,17,24,26–28 . However, spinal MRI constitutes some of the most common clinical exams 29 and the performance of ANR techniques for imaging of the spine is not well known.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Maintaining Image Quality While Reducing Acoustic Noise and Switched Gradient Field Exposure During Lumbar MRI

Glans

Wilén

Lindgren

2021

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: MR-generated acoustic noise can contribute to patient discomfort and potentially be harmful. One way to reduce this noise is by altering the gradient output and/or waveform using software optimization. Such modifications might influence image quality and switched gradient field exposure, and different techniques appear to affect sound pressure levels (SPLs) to various degrees. Purpose: To evaluate SPLs, image quality, switched gradient field exposure, and participants' perceived noise levels during two different acoustic noise reduction (ANR) techniques, Quiet Suite (QS) and Whisper Mode (WM), and to compare them with conventional T2-weighted turbo spin echo (T2W TSE) of the lumbar spine. Design: Prospective. Subjects: Forty adults referred for lumbar MRI. Field Strength/Sequence: Conventional T2W TSE, T2W TSE with QS, and T2W TSE with WM were acquired at 1.5 T. Assessment: Peak SPL (A-weighted decibels, dBA), perceived noise levels (Borg CR10 ® -scale), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), three radiologists' qualitative assessments in image quality on an ordinal scale 1-4, switched gradient field exposure (% general public), and gradient currents were measured. Interobserver reliability was reported as percentage agreement. Statistical Tests: Repeated measures ANOVA, Friedman's ANOVA, and Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test for acoustic noise measurements and image quality assessments. Results: Mean peak SPLs were 89.9 dBA, 74.3 dBA, and 78.8 dBA for conventional, QS, and WM, respectively (P < 0.05). Participants perceived QS as the quietest and conventional as the loudest sequence (P < 0.05). No qualitative differences in image quality were seen (P > 0.05), although QS showed significantly improved SNR and CNR (P < 0.05). Switched gradient field exposure was reduced by 66% and 48% for QS and WM, respectively. Data Conclusion: Without degrading image quality, both QS and WM are viable ANR techniques in lumbar T2W TSE. QS provided the lowest SPL, the lowest gradient field exposure and was perceived as the most silent among the three sequences. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Maintaining Image Quality While Reducing Acoustic Noise and Switched Gradient Field Exposure During Lumbar MRI

Glans

Wilén

Lindgren

2021

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Acoustic Noise and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Narrative/Descriptive Review

McJury

2021

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Acoustic Noise Levels in High‐field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners

Akbar,

Sayyid,

Roberts

et al. 2023

OTO Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract7‐Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging may allow for higher resolution images but may produce greater acoustic noise than 1.5‐ and 3‐T scanners. We sought to characterize the intensity of acoustic noise from 7‐ versus 3‐T scanners. A‐weighted sound pressure levels from 5 types of pulse sequences used for brain and inner ear imaging in 3‐ and 7‐T scanners were measured. Time‐averaged sound level and maximum sound levels generated for each sequence were compared. Time‐averaged sound levels exceeded 95 dB and reached maximums above 105 dB on the majority of 3‐ and 7‐T scans. The mean time‐averaged sound level and maximum sound level across pulse sequences were greater in 7‐ than 3‐T (105.6 vs 91.4, P = .01; 114.0 vs. 96.5 dB, P < .01). 7‐ and 3‐T magnetic resonance imaging scanners produce high levels of acoustic noise that exceed acceptable safety limits, emphasizing the need for active and passive noise protection.

show abstract

Comparison of image quality characteristics on Silent MRversusconventional MR imaging of brain lesions at 3 Tesla

Cited by 9 publications

References 28 publications

Maintaining Image Quality While Reducing Acoustic Noise and Switched Gradient Field Exposure During Lumbar MRI

Maintaining Image Quality While Reducing Acoustic Noise and Switched Gradient Field Exposure During Lumbar MRI

Acoustic Noise and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Narrative/Descriptive Review

Acoustic Noise Levels in High‐field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About