Rapid measurement and correction of phase errors from B0 eddy currents: impact on image quality for non-Cartesian imaging.

Non-Cartesian imaging sequences and navigational methods can be more sensitive to scanner imperfections that have little impact on conventional clinical sequences, an issue which has repeatedly complicated the commercialization of these techniques by frustrating transitions to multicenter evaluations. One such imperfection is phase errors caused by resonant frequency shifts from eddy currents induced in the cryostat by time-varying gradients, a phenomenon known as B(0) eddy currents. These phase errors can have a substantial impact on sequences that use ramp sampling, bipolar gradients, and readouts at varying azimuthal angles. We present a method for measuring and correcting phase errors from B(0) eddy currents and examine the results on two different scanner models. This technique yields significant improvements in image quality for high-resolution joint imaging on certain scanners. This result suggests that correcting short-time B(0) eddy currents that do not affect conventional clinical sequences may simplify the adoption of non-Cartesian methods.

Cartilage morphology at 3.0T: assessment of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging techniques.

PURPOSE: To compare six new three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance (MR) methods for evaluating knee cartilage at 3.0T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared: fast-spin-echo cube (FSE-Cube), vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction balanced steady-state free precession (VIPR-bSSFP), iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation combined with spoiled gradient echo (IDEAL-SPGR) and gradient echo (IDEAL-GRASS), multiecho in steady-state acquisition (MENSA), and coherent oscillatory state acquisition for manipulation of image contrast (COSMIC). Five-minute sequences were performed twice on 10 healthy volunteers and once on five osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured from the volunteers. Images of the five volunteers and the five OA patients were ranked on tissue contrast, articular surface clarity, reformat quality, and lesion conspicuity. FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP were compared to IDEAL-SPGR for cartilage volume measurements. RESULTS: FSE-Cube had top rankings for lesion conspicuity, overall SNR, and CNR (P < 0.02). VIPR-bSSFP had top rankings in tissue contrast and articular surface clarity. VIPR and FSE-Cube tied for best in reformatting ability. FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP compared favorably to IDEAL-SPGR in accuracy and precision of cartilage volume measurements. CONCLUSION: FSE-Cube and VIPR-bSSFP produce high image quality with accurate volume measurement of knee cartilage.

Vastly undersampled isotropic projection steady-state free precession imaging of the knee: diagnostic performance compared with conventional MR.

PURPOSE: To compare a vastly undersampled isotropic projection steady-state free precession (VIPR-SSFP) sequence and routine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for evaluating the cartilage, ligaments, menisci, and osseous structures of the knee in symptomatic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All subjects signed written informed consent prior to participation in this prospective, HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study. VIPR-SSFP was added to the routine 1.5-T MR imaging performed on 95 symptomatic patients (52 men, 43 women; average age, 41.6 years) who subsequently underwent arthroscopic knee surgery. All MR examinations were independently reviewed twice by two musculoskeletal radiologists to detect cartilage lesions, anterior and posterior cruciate ligament tears, meniscal tears, and bone marrow edema lesions, first by using routine MR and second by using VIPR-SSFP. By using arthroscopy as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of both MR protocols were calculated. The z test was used to compare sensitivity and specificity values. RESULTS: VIPR-SSFP had significantly higher specificity (P < .01) for helping detect cartilage lesions (92.2% for VIPR-SSFP and 88.4% for routine MR), while routine MR had significantly higher sensitivity (P = .02) and accuracy (P = .05) for helping detect lateral meniscal tears (73.2% sensitivity and 88.4% accuracy for VIPR-SSFP and 87.5% specificity and 93.2% accuracy for routine MR). There was no significant difference (P = .14 to >.99) between VIPR-SSFP and routine MR in the remaining sensitivity and specificity values. VIPR-SSFP helped detect 69.3% of bone marrow edema lesions identified at routine MR. CONCLUSION: VIPR-SSFP can provide important clinical information regarding the cartilage, ligaments, menisci, and osseous structures of the knee, but is less sensitive than conventional MR imaging at helping detect lateral meniscal tears and bone marrow edema lesions.