Ces radiol. 2008, 62(3):233-243

MR imaging in magnetic field of 3 T: theoretical aspects and practical comparisonOriginal article

Jaroslav Tintěra
Základna radiodiagnostiky a intervenční radiologie IKEM, Praha

Aim: In recent years, remarkable increase in number of newly installed MR system with high magnetic field 3 T and also an increase of the interest of high field systems generally can be seen. Very often only the advantages of high-field imaging are emphasized which can lead to raw simplification that high field systems are generally "better". This contribution tries to put the argumentation as closed as possible to current reality using both theoretical physical effects and also by means of own direct comparison of examinations of various body parts.

Method: Examination protocols with very similar image contrast and identical acquisition time were compared on MR systems Siemens Avanto 1.5 T and Trio 3 T equipped with the same hardware as well as software.

Results: Brain MR imaging clearly profits from high magnetic field mainly due to increase of SNR but also due longer T1 relaxation time when performing MR angiography or due to enhanced BOLD effect in functional MR imaging. However, examination of the spine on 3 T has not only advantages because of SAR limitations and also due to CSF pulsation and chemical shift artifacts. High level of SAR causes also problems in chest and abdominal region; moreover images can suffer from inhomogeneity due to dielectric resonance and local magnetic field inhomogeneity. On the contrary, imaging of pelvis region and musculoskeletal system can significantly profit from increased SNR.

Conclusion: The growth of SNR at 3T leads generally to possible higher spatial resolution and/or shorter acquisition time. However, number of other physical aspects influences the examination in positive but also in negative sense.

Keywords: high-field-strength MR system, MR imaging

Accepted: July 17, 2008; Published: September 1, 2008  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Tintěra J. MR imaging in magnetic field of 3 T: theoretical aspects and practical comparison. Ces radiol. 2008;62(3):233-243.
Download citation

References

  1. Hoult DI, Phil D. Sensitivity and power deposition in a high-field imaging experiment. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12: 46-67. Go to original source...
  2. Stanisz GJ, Odrobina EE, Pun J, et al. T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54: 507-512. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Lu H, Clingman C, Golay X, van Zijl PC. Determining the longitudinal relaxation time (T1) of blood at 3.0 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2004; 52: 679-682. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Weigel M, Hennig J. Contrast behavior and relaxation effects of conventional and hyperecho-turbo spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T. Magn Reson Med 2006; 55: 826-835. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Gold GE, Han E, Stainsby J, Wright G, Brittain J, Beaulieu C. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3 T: relaxation times and image contrast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 343-351. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Rinck PA, Muller RN. Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 998-1004. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005; 40: 715-724. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Ba-Ssalamah A, Nobauer-Huhmann IM, Pinker K, et al. Effect of contrast dose and field strength in the magnetic resonance detection of brain metastases. Invest Radiol 2003; 38: 415-422. Go to original source...
  9. Krautmacher C, Willinek WA, Tschampa HJ, et al. Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T-initial experience. Radiology 2005; 237: 1014-1019. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Hargreaves BA, Cunningham CH, Nishimura DG, Conolly SM. Variable-rate selective excitation for rapid MRI sequences. Magn Reson Med 2004; 52: 590-597. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Hennig J, Scheffler K. Hyperechoes. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46: 6-12. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Mugler JP, III, Kiefer B, Brookeman JR. Three-dimensional T2-weighted imaging of the brain using very long spin-echo trains (abstr) In: Proceedings of the Eighth Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2000; 1630.
  13. Hennig J, Weigel M, Scheffler K. Multi echo sequences with variable refocussing flip angles: optimization of signal behaviour using smooth transitions between pseudo steady states (TRAPS). Magn Reson Med 2003; 49: 527-535. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, et al. Female pelvis: MR imaging at 3.0 T with sensitivity encoding and flip-angle sweep technique. Radiology 2006; 241: 538-545. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Sicotte NL, Voskuhl RR, Bouvier S, Klutch R, Cohen MS, Mazziotta JC. Comparison of multiple sclerosis lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2003; 38: 423-427. Go to original source...
  16. Krautmacher C, Willinek WA, Tschampa HJ, et al. Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T-initial experience. Radiology 2005; 237: 1014-1019. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J, Jaffe TA, Gullotto C. 3,0 versus 1.5 T MR Cholangiography: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 516-521. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Kataoka M, Kido A, Koyama T, et al. MRI of the female pelvis at 3 T compared to 1.5 T: evaluation on high resolution T2-weighted and HASTE images. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25: 527-534. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhart SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 2007; 243: 28-53. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Fischer HW, Rinck PA, Van Haverbeke Y, Muller RN. Nuclear relaxation of human brain gray and white matter: analysis of field dependence and implications for MRI. Magn Reson Med 1990; 16: 317-334. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.