24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prevalência de artefatos em exames de ressonância magnética do abdome utilizando a seqüência GRASE: comparável com as melhores seqüências rápidas? Translated title: Prevalence of artifacts in abdominal magnetic resonance imaging using GRASE sequence: a comparison with TSE sequences

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJETIVO: Determinar a freqüência global de artefatos na seqüência "gradient and spin echo" (GRASE), por tipo e grau do artefato, em exames de ressonância magnética de abdome; realizar comparação entre as seqüências GRASE e duas seqüências TSE previamente selecionadas como aquelas com melhor relação sinal-ruído e menor incidência de artefatos. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Foi realizado estudo prospectivo, autopareado, em 86 pacientes submetidos a ressonância magnética de abdome superior, sendo adquiridas a seqüência GRASE com sincronizador respiratório e supressão de gordura e seis seqüências TSE ponderadas em T2. Dentre as seis seqüências TSE, foram previamente selecionadas aquelas com melhor relação sinal-ruído e menor número de artefatos, que foram as realizadas com supressão de gordura e com sincronizador respiratório, sendo uma com bobina de corpo (seqüência 1) e outra com bobina de sinergia (seqüência 2). A análise das imagens foi realizada por dois observadores em consenso, quanto a presença, grau e tipo de artefato. Posteriormente os dados foram analisados estatisticamente, através do teste de Friedman e do qui-quadrado. RESULTADOS: A freqüência absoluta de artefatos nas seqüências utilizadas foi de 65,02%. Os artefatos mais encontrados nas três seqüências estudadas foram os de respiração (30%) e de pulsação (33%). Apenas 3% dos casos apresentaram algum tipo de artefato que dificultava a análise das imagens. As freqüências de artefatos nas diversas seqüências foram: GRASE, 67,2%; seqüência TSE 1, 62,2%; seqüência TSE 2, 65,5%. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante na freqüência de artefatos encontrados nas seqüências GRASE e nas seqüências TSE (p = 0,845; NS). CONCLUSÃO: As seqüências GRASE e TSE ponderadas em T2 com sincronizador respiratório e com supressão de gordura, independentemente da bobina utilizada, apresentam freqüentemente artefatos, porém com incidência semelhante e geralmente sem interferência na avaliação das imagens.

          Translated abstract

          OBJECTIVE: To determine the overall frequency of artifacts per type and grade using the GRASE sequence in abdominal magnetic resonance; to compare GRASE sequences with two previously selected TSE sequences as well as sequences with best signal-noise ratio and lower incidence of artifacts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective self-paired study was carried out in 86 patients submitted to upper abdominal magnetic resonance using a GRASE sequence obtained upon respiratory triggered and fat suppression and six TSE T2-weighted sequences. Among the six TSE sequences, those bearing the best signal-noise ratio and lower number of artifacts were previously selected, which consisted of those performed with fat suppression and respiratory triggering: one using a conventional body coil (sequence 1) and a second sequence using a synergy coil (sequence 2). Image analysis was carried out by two observers upon consensus regarding the presence, grade and type of artifact thereon. Subsequently, data were statistically analyzed using the Friedman test and chi-square. RESULTS: The absolute frequency of artifacts in all sequences was 65.02%. Most common artifacts in the three sequences analyzed were breathing (30%) and pulsation (33%) artifacts. Only in 3% of the cases artifacts interfered with the analysis of the images. The frequency of artifacts in the different sequences was: GRASE, 67.2%; TSE sequence 1, 62.2%; TSE sequence 2, 65.5%. There was no significant statistical difference between artifact frequency seen with GRASE and TSE sequences (p = 0.845; NS). CONCLUSION: GRASE and TSE T2-weighted, respiratory triggered, fat suppressed sequences often produce artifacts, notwithstanding the coil, although, with similar frequency and generally without interfering with the evaluation of the images.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          GRASE (gradient- and spin-echo) MR imaging: a new fast clinical imaging technique.

          A novel technique of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, which combines gradient-echo and spin-echo (GRASE) technique, accomplishes T2-weighted multisection imaging in drastically reduced imaging time, currently 24 times faster than spin-echo imaging. The GRASE technique maintains contrast mechanisms, high spatial resolution, and image quality of spin-echo imaging and is compatible with clinical whole-body MR systems without modification of gradient hardware. Image acquisition time is 18 seconds for 11 multisection body images (2,000/80 [repetition time msec/echo time msec]) and 36 seconds for 22 brain images (4,000/104). With a combination of multiple Hahn spin echoes and short gradient-echo trains, the GRASE technique overcomes several potential problems of echo-planar imaging, including large chemical shift, image distortions, and signal loss from field inhomogeneity. Advantages of GRASE over the RARE (rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement) technique include faster acquisition times and lower deposition of radio-frequency power in the body. Breath holding during 18-second GRASE imaging of the upper abdomen eliminates respiratory-motion artifacts in T2-weighted images. A major improvement in T2-weighted abdominal imaging is suggested.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            MR imaging artifacts that simulate disease: how to recognize and eliminate them.

            Occasionally, artifacts may simulate pathologic conditions on magnetic resonance (MR) images. Motion artifacts especially affect images of the chest and abdomen. There are a number of techniques for reducing motion artifacts, including respiratory and cardiac gating, k-space phase reordering, gradient moment nulling, even echo rephasing, and physical restraints. Aliasing occurs when the field of view does not include all of the anatomic structures present in the imaged section. Aliasing artifacts can be eliminated by increasing the field of view, oversampling, and use of saturation pulses or surface coils. Truncation artifacts represent the difference between the original and the reconstructed image and can be reduced with data extrapolation algorithms or image filtering. Chemical shift artifacts and magnetic susceptibility artifacts are due to a local deformity of the magnetic field, resulting in spatial misregistration. Chemical shift artifacts are more severe in images acquired with a narrow-bandwidth technique; magnetic susceptibility artifacts are more severe in images acquired with a long echo time. Pitfalls in the interpretation of MR images can be avoided by becoming familiar with the appearances and causes of common MR imaging artifacts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Overcoming motion in abdominal MR imaging.

              Anatomic structures that move periodically during the acquisition of data for an MR image become multiple ghosts in the phase-encoding direction. There is a constant spacing in pixels between consecutive ghosts, which is equal to the number of cycles of motion that occurred during the acquisition of data. The intensity of ghosts depends on the intensity of the moving structure and the number of pixels over which the motion occurred. No single method is completely satisfactory at suppressing motion artifacts. The major attributes and limitations of each method are summarized in Table 2, with plus (+) signs denoting merit. Theoretically, some methods perform better in reducing the intensity of ghosts and restoring the image intensity to its proper place. This certainly is not the final criterion, however. Some methods reduce the blurring in addition to suppressing the ghosts, or they suppress ghosts without prolonging the time for imaging. Certain methods also reduce ghosts from other kinds of motion. It is very appealing for a method to function without monitoring. The success of monitoring often depends too much on the cooperation of both the patient and technologist. The theoretical performance, attributes, and deficiencies of the various methods have been combined into a subjective overall rating in the last column of Table 2. All of the methods can be effective under the appropriate circumstances. Moreover, the methods are not mutually exclusive. It is advantageous, therefore, to combine methods to achieve even greater suppression. For example, physical restraint can be used for all but the most uncooperative patients. Most imaging techniques can be designed with gradients that rephase the signals from moving structures. Then other methods, such as averaging or reordering, can be applied as necessary. Fortunately, there are effective motion artifact suppression methods, even though not all are widely available yet on commercial equipment. Consistent suppression of motion artifacts will enhance the quality of MR images. Elimination of motion artifacts will improve the capability of MR to detect lesions and will provide a higher standard of performance for MR in the body.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                rb
                Radiologia Brasileira
                Radiol Bras
                Publicação do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (São Paulo, SP, Brazil )
                1678-7099
                September 2005
                : 38
                : 5
                : 323-328
                Affiliations
                [02] orgnameUnifesp orgdiv1EPM orgdiv2DDI
                [05] orgnameUnifesp orgdiv1EPM orgdiv2DDI
                [03] orgnameUnifesp orgdiv1EPM orgdiv2DDI
                [04] orgnameUnifesp orgdiv1EPM orgdiv2DDI
                [01] orgnameUnifesp orgdiv1EPM orgdiv2DDI
                Article
                S0100-39842005000500003 S0100-3984(05)03800503
                370fd34f-1ae0-4b64-8e0c-198b680662cf

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 15 December 2004
                : 24 October 2004
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 20, Pages: 6
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Categories
                Artigos Originais

                Artifact,Magnetic resonance,Abdomen,Artefato,Ressonância magnética,Abdome

                Comments

                Comment on this article