MRI of peripheral joints with a low-field dedicated system: A reliable and cost-effective alternative to high-field units?

Kersting-Sommerhoff, B; Hof, N.; Lenz, Martin; Gerhardt, P

doi:10.1007/bf00182495

Cited by 32 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the age of cost containment and urgent reductions in health care expenditures, new options have to be explored to satisfy both diagnostic requirements and economic limitations [36]. The introduction of low-field MR systems for assessment of joint disorders seemed to be an option for lower costs, furthermore providing more patient comfort and an alternative for claustrophobic patients and for children; however, before low-field imaging can be recommended in clinical practice, image quality and diagnostic accuracy must be comparable to those obtained from mid-or high-field MR units.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-field MR arthrography of the shoulder joint: technique, indications, and clinical results

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-field MR arthrography of the shoulder joint: technique, indications, and clinical results

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The initial investment for equipment, construction, and service contracts is less than for a mid-field or high-field MR system [26]. In contrast to dedicated MR systems [24,25], the open configuration of the low-field scanner used in the present study allows for imaging of the shoulder joint and potentially enables kinematic studies [27]. However, before lowfield MR imaging can be recommended in clinical practice, image quality and especially diagnostic accuracy must be comparable to those obtained from mid-or high-field MR units.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0,2 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) imaging

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to compare the image quality, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of an open low-field MR system (0.2 T) with a standard high-field MR system (1.5 T) after arthrography of the shoulder. Thirty-eight patients either with suspected chronic instability (n = 12) or rotator cuff abnormalities (n = 26) were examined. Intra-articular injection of diluted Gd-DTPA was followed in randomized order either first by imaging on an open 0.2-T system or on a 1.5-T system. The image material was evaluated independently by two radiologists in a blinded fashion with respect to overall image quality and the detection of rotator cuff as well as capsular and labral abnormalities. Surgical correlation was available in 27 (71%) of 38 patients. For both systems, sensitivity and specificity for rotator cuff tears were 100% each, and for labrum pathologies, these values were 100 and 93%, respectively. The agreement for detection of labral pathologies between low-field and high-field examinations was good (kappa = 0.69, kappa = 0.61). For the detection of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff, the agreement between the low-field and high-field MR examinations was very good and significant (kappa = 0.94, kappa = 1, p < 0.001). Overall image quality was rated good in 17 (45%) and fair in 21 (55%) of 38 cases on the 0.2-T MR system, and good in 32 (84%) and fair in 6 (16%) of 38 cases on the 1.5-T system. Motion artifacts were considered low in 24 (63%) and moderate in 14 (37%) of 38 cases for the 0.2-T system and low in 34 (89%) and moderate in 4 (11%) for 1.5-T system. Based on our results, low-field MR compares favorably to high-field MR in the detection of major abnormalities of the glenohumeral joint, at least when MR arthrography is used. Disadvantages are the duration of the examination and thus the risk of reduced image quality caused by motion artifacts.

show abstract

“…There are also several publications presenting the applicability of the recently introduced low-field ªdedicat-edº extremity MR imaging (E-MRI) system in the diagnosis of various diseases [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. In addition to lower fixed costs, E-MRI is easier to site than whole-body MR imaging, and eliminates the problem of claustrophobia and potential biohazards associated with metal in the patient by removing all but the limb of interest from the magnet bore [9,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dedicated extremity MR imaging of the foot and ankle

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this review is to provide illustrative examples of diseases of the foot and ankle when imaged with a low-field MR imaging system. A retrospective review of 268 foot and ankle examinations, performed in our institution within the past 3 years with a 0.2-T (Artoscan Esaote, Genoa, Italy) dedicated extremity MR system was done. Additionally, illustrative comparison with conventional radiography and high-field MR imaging is presented in patients in whom these examinations were also performed. Although motion artifact limited the value of a few studies, in the majority of examinations low-field MR imaging provided diagnostic image quality for the full spectrum of disorders affecting the foot and ankle and seemed to be a feasible alternative to high-field MR imaging in establishing an accurate diagnosis.

show abstract

MRI of peripheral joints with a low-field dedicated system: A reliable and cost-effective alternative to high-field units?

Cited by 32 publications

References 12 publications

Low-field MR arthrography of the shoulder joint: technique, indications, and clinical results

Low-field MR arthrography of the shoulder joint: technique, indications, and clinical results

MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0,2 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) imaging

Dedicated extremity MR imaging of the foot and ankle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About