Three-Dimensional CAIPIRINHA SPACE TSE for 5-Minute High-Resolution MRI of the Knee

Fritz, Jan; Fritz, Benjamin; Thawait, Gaurav K.; Meyer, Heiko; Gilson, Wesley D.; Raithel, Esther

doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000000287

Cited by 89 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CAIPIRINHA can be combined with view-sharing and Dixon water-fat separation to produce fat-only and water-only images of the liver [127]. High-resolution 3D knee images can be acquired in under 5 minutes using CAIPIRINHA [128]. …”

Section: 3d Parallel Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances in parallel imaging for MRI

Hamilton

Franson

Seiberlich

2017

Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

155

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is an essential technology in modern medicine. However, one of its main drawbacks is the long scan time needed to localize the MR signal in space to generate an image. This review article summarizes some basic principles and recent developments in parallel imaging, a class of image reconstruction techniques for shortening scan time. First, the fundamentals of MRI data acquisition are covered, including the concepts of k-space, undersampling, and aliasing. It is demonstrated that scan time can be reduced by sampling a smaller number of phase encoding lines in k-space; however, without further processing, the resulting images will be degraded by aliasing artifacts. Nearly all modern clinical scanners acquire data from multiple independent receiver coil arrays. Parallel imaging methods exploit properties of these coil arrays to separate aliased pixels in the image domain or to estimate missing k-space data using knowledge of nearby acquired k-space points. Three parallel imaging methods—SENSE, GRAPPA, and SPIRiT—are described in detail, since they are employed clinically and form the foundation for more advanced methods. These techniques can be extended to non-Cartesian sampling patterns, where the collected k-space points do not fall on a rectangular grid. Non-Cartesian acquisitions have several beneficial properties, the most important being the appearance of incoherent aliasing artifacts. Recent advances in simultaneous multi-slice imaging are presented next, which use parallel imaging to disentangle images of several slices that have been acquired at once. Parallel imaging can also be employed to accelerate 3D MRI, in which a contiguous volume is scanned rather than sequential slices. Another class of phase-constrained parallel imaging methods takes advantage of both image magnitude and phase to achieve better reconstruction performance. Finally, some applications are presented of parallel imaging being used to accelerate MR Spectroscopic Imaging.

show abstract

Section: 3d Parallel Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances in parallel imaging for MRI

Hamilton

Franson

Seiberlich

2017

Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

155

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the use of advanced acceleration techniques, 3D sequences might improve the efficiency of peripheral joint imaging with similar or better image quality than 2D MRI. In addition, 3D sequences acquire a volumetric isotropic data set, which can be used for multiplanar reformation (MPR), eliminating the need to obtain images with identical tissue contrast in multiple planes . 3D sequences also provide thin, continuous sections through the knee joint, which reduces the effects of partial volume averaging .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: A meta‐analysis of the diagnostic performance of 3D MRI

Shakoor

Guermazi

Kijowski

et al. 2019

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite the advantages of 3D MRI in evaluation of cruciate ligament injuries, its use in clinical practice is still a matter of debate due to controversy regarding its diagnostic performance. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of 3D MRI for detecting cruciate ligament injuries, using surgery or arthroscopy as the reference standard. Study Type Meta‐analysis. Population Patients with knee pain. Field Strength/Sequence 3D and 2D MRI. Assessment Four databases were reviewed according to PRISMA guidelines. Statistical Tests Pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated using a random‐effects model. To investigate the effect of relevant covariates on the diagnostic performance of 3D MRI, sensitivity analysis was performed using meta‐regression to calculate relative DOR. Results Of 731 initially identified reports, 22 (1298 3D MRI examinations) met our criteria and were included. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for 3D sequences were 91.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.4–94.2%) and 96.1% (95% CI: 93.8–97.6%), respectively. Fourteen studies also reported the results of 2D MRI, with pooled sensitivity of 90.6% (95% CI: 84.1–94.6%) and specificity of 97.1% (95% CI: 94.7–98.4%), which were not significantly different from 3D sequences. 3D MRI sequences performed using 3T scanners had significantly higher DOR compared with 3D sequences performed on 1.5T or lower scanners (relative DOR: 6.04, P = 0.01). Data Conclusion 3D MRI is equivalent to 2D MRI in the diagnosis of cruciate ligament injuries. The use of 3T scanners improves the performance of 3D MRI for detecting cruciate ligament injuries. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1545–1560.

show abstract

“…However, even with the combination of T1 3D subtraction technique, the presence of contrast enhancement still resulted in misclassification in some cases. These errors may be further improved by the application of more advanced imaging techniques such as 3D CAIPIRINHA (controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration) (38), compressed sensing (39), or reduced field-of-view imaging (40,41), which can provide higher spatial resolution without increasing scan time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%