2021
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.a7001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of DISORDER: Retrospective Image Motion Correction for Volumetric Brain MRI in a Pediatric Setting

Abstract: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Head motion causes image degradation in brain MR imaging examinations, negatively impacting image quality, especially in pediatric populations. Here, we used a retrospective motion correction technique in children and assessed image quality improvement for 3D MR imaging acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We prospectively acquired brain MR imaging at 3T using 3D sequences, T1-weighted MPRAGE, T2-weighted TSE, and FLAIR in 32 unsedated children, including 7 with epilepsy (age range, 2-18… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…SAMER further reduces the computational footprint by restricting readout voxels, using coil compression, and having only a single iteration step, reaching a median reconstruction time of 107 seconds in this study compared with several minutes with other retrospective motion correction techniques. 8,28 A further added advantage of all the retrospective motioncorrection techniques is that they can be applied to existing clinical protocols, equipment, and workflow through modifications to the sequence and reconstruction software, without incurring additional burden to the patients or operators by obviating the need for external markers or cameras. [29][30][31] SAMER motion correction disproportionately benefited studies that had moderate and severe motion artifacts, with most nondiagnostic motion cases exhibiting an improvement in the motion grade.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SAMER further reduces the computational footprint by restricting readout voxels, using coil compression, and having only a single iteration step, reaching a median reconstruction time of 107 seconds in this study compared with several minutes with other retrospective motion correction techniques. 8,28 A further added advantage of all the retrospective motioncorrection techniques is that they can be applied to existing clinical protocols, equipment, and workflow through modifications to the sequence and reconstruction software, without incurring additional burden to the patients or operators by obviating the need for external markers or cameras. [29][30][31] SAMER motion correction disproportionately benefited studies that had moderate and severe motion artifacts, with most nondiagnostic motion cases exhibiting an improvement in the motion grade.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All scans were acquired using the DISORDER scheme, which has demonstrated improved tolerance against motion (Figure S1). 34,35 In‐depth detail of the reconstruction algorithm has been described previously 34,36 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All scans were acquired using the DISORDER scheme (Supplementary Figure 1), which has demonstrated improved tolerance against motion by guaranteeing that the acquisition of every shot contains a series of samples distributed incoherently throughout k-space 30,31 . In-depth detail of the reconstruction algorithm has been described previously 30,32 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%