Conical ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI in the evaluation of pediatric acute appendicitis.
Conical ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI in the evaluation of pediatric acute appendicitis.
复制标题
锥形超短回波时间 (UTE) MRI 评估小儿急性阑尾炎。
DOI：
10.1007/s00261-018-1705-y
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Loening,AndreasM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Roh,AlbertT;Xiao,Zhibo;Cheng,JosephY;Vasanawala,ShreyasS;Loening,AndreasM
目的具有圆锥空间轨迹的磁共振成像 (MRI) 序列能够减少运动伪影，同时实现超短回波时间 (UTE)。我们评估了自由呼吸圆锥形 UTE MRI 在评估儿童骨盆疑似阑尾炎方面的表现。方法我们对 84 名因疑似阑尾炎接受 MRI 的儿科患者进行回顾性检查，比较了三种对比增强序列：自由呼吸圆锥形 UTE、屏气三维 (3D) 破坏梯度回波 (BH-SPGR) 和自由呼吸高分辨率 3D SPGR (FB-SPGR)。两名放射科医生对每个序列的图像质量（四点量表）、解剖轮廓（四点量表）和诊断置信度（五点量表）进行盲法独立评估。随后，直接比较三个序列的整体图像质量（−3 至 +3 等级）。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验比较分数。结果UTE 表现出比 BH-SPGR 和 FB-SPGR 明显更好的感知信噪比 (SNR) 和更少的伪影（平均值分别为 3.6 和 3.4、3.4 和 3.2、3.1 和 2.7；p< 0.0006）。 BH-SPGR 和 FB-SPGR 表现出明显优于 UTE 的对比度（平均值分别为 3.6、3.4 和 3.2；p< 0.03）。在其余类别中，UTE 的表现显着优于 FB-SPGR (p< 0.00001)，而 UTE 和 BH-SPGR 之间没有统计差异。整体图像质量的直接配对比较表明，与 BH-SPGR（平均值 + 0.5，p< 0.00001）和 FB-SPGR（平均值 + 1.2，p< 0.00001）相比，读者明显更喜欢 UTE。 结论 在评估疑似阑尾炎时，自由呼吸锥形 UTE MRI 在评估指标上比 FB-SPGR 表现更好。与 BH-SPGR 相比，UTE 表现出卓越的感知 SNR 和更少的伪影。
PurposeMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences with conicalk-space trajectories are able to decrease motion artifacts while achieving ultrashort echo times (UTE). We assessed the performance of free-breathing conical UTE MRI in the evaluation of the pediatric pelvis for suspected appendicitis.MethodsOur retrospective review of 84 pediatric patients who underwent MRI for suspected appendicitis compared three contrast-enhanced sequences: free-breathing conical UTE, breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) spoiled gradient echo (BH-SPGR), and free-breathing high-resolution 3D SPGR (FB-SPGR). Two radiologists performed blinded and independent evaluations of each sequence for image quality (four point scale), anatomic delineation (four point scale), and diagnostic confidence (five point scale). Subsequently, the three sequences were directly compared for overall image quality (− 3 to + 3 scale). Scores were compared using Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.ResultsUTE demonstrated significantly better perceived signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and fewer artifacts than BH-SPGR and FB-SPGR (means of 3.6 and 3.4, 3.4 and 3.2, 3.1 and 2.7, respectively;p< 0.0006). BH-SPGR and FB-SPGR demonstrated significantly better contrast than UTE (means of 3.6, 3.4, and 3.2, respectively;p< 0.03). In the remaining categories, UTE performed significantly better than FB-SPGR (p< 0.00001), while there was no statistical difference between UTE and BH-SPGR. Direct paired comparisons of overall image quality demonstrated the readers significantly preferred UTE over both BH-SPGR (mean + 0.5,p< 0.00001) and FB-SPGR (mean + 1.2,p< 0.00001).ConclusionsIn the evaluation of suspected appendicitis, free-breathing conical UTE MRI performed better in the assessed metrics than FB-SPGR. When compared to BH-SPGR, UTE demonstrated superior perceived SNR and fewer artifacts.