Advanced

AJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Habermann, C.R. Articles by Adam, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Habermann, C.R. Articles by Adam, G.

American Journal of Neuroradiology 28:1547-1551, September 2007
DOI 10.3174/ajnr.A0587
© 2007 American Society of Neuroradiology

HEAD & NECK

Monitoring of Gustatory Stimulation of Salivary Glands by Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging: Comparison of 1.5T and 3T

C.R. Habermann^a, P. Gossrau^a, H. Kooijman^c, J. Graessner^d, M.C. Cramer^a, M.G. Kaul^a, F. Reitmeier^b, M. Jaehne^b and G. Adam^a

^a Departments of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
^b Departments of Oto-, Rhino-, Laryngology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
^c Philips Medical Systems, Best, The Netherlands
^d Siemens Medical Solutions, Hamburg, Germany

Please address correspondence to Christian R. Habermann, MD, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Martinstr 53, 20246 Hamburg, Germany; e-mail: c.habermann{at}uke.uni-hamburg.de

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our aim was to compare different field strengths monitoring physiologic changes due to oral stimulation of parotid glands by using diffusion-weighted (DW) echo-planar imaging (EPI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven healthy volunteers were examined with a DW-EPI sequence at 1.5T and 3T before and after oral stimulation with commercially available lemon juice. The b factors used were 0, 500, and 1000 s/mm². Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were evaluated with a manually placed region of interest including the entire parotid gland. For comparison of results, a Student t test was used on the basis of the mean of the volunteer median values. To compare both field strengths, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient (r).

RESULTS: DW-EPI MR imaging visualized the parotid glands of all volunteers. With 1.5T, the mean ADC before stimulation was 1.12 x 10^–3 mm²/s ± 0.08 x 10^–3 mm²/s. After stimulation with lemon juice, the ADC increased to 1.18 x 10^–3 mm²/s ± 0.09 x 10^–3 mm²/s. For 3T, the ADC before stimulation was 1.14 x 10^–3 mm²/s ± 0.04 x 10^–3 mm²/s, with an increase to 1.17 x 10^–3 mm²/s ± 0.05 x 10^–3 mm²/s after stimulation. For both field strengths, the increase in ADC after stimulation was significant (P < .001). High correlations between both field strengths were found pre- and poststimulation (r = 0.955, and 0.936, respectively).

CONCLUSION: DW-EPI MR imaging allows monitoring of physiologic changes due to oral stimulation of parotid glands by using DW imaging with high correlation between 1.5T and 3T.