Low-field versus high-field MR imaging of the knee: a comparison of signal behaviour and diagnostic performance

https://doi.org/10.1016/0720-048X(94)00589-5Get rights and content

Abstract

A prospective study was undertaken to compare MR imaging of the knee obtained with low-field and high-field systems. In 10 subjects, MR imaging of the knee was performed on a 0.2 T permanent magnet and on a 1.5 T superconductive system. Similar spin echo (SE) and 3D-FISP (3D Fourier transform with steady state precession) acquisitions were obtained. Comparative image analysis was performed independently by four radiologists. Results show that the image quality and diagnostic performance delivered by state-of-the-art 0.2 T and 1.5 T systems is equivalent. Advantages of the 1.5 T system included: better signal-to-noise ratio, shorter scan times, better visualization of asymptomatic grade 1 meniscal degeneration on SE images. Advantages of 0.2 T images were: decreased chemical shift, susceptibility and flow artifacts, improved evaluation of subchondral bone on 3D-FISP images, slightly better patient tolerance. We conclude that, for MR imaging of the knee, a low-field system is a cost-effective alternative to more expensive superconducting units.

References (31)

  • MP Grevitt et al.

    Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: initial experience in a district general hospital

    Injury

    (1992)
  • JW Carlson et al.

    A technique for MR imaging of the knee under large flexing angles

    Magn Reson Imaging

    (1990)
  • JV Crues et al.

    Meniscal tears of the knee: accuracy of MR imaging

    Radiology

    (1987)
  • DW Stoller et al.

    Meniscal tears: pathologic correlation with MR imaging

    Radiology

    (1987)
  • SF Quinn et al.

    Meniscal tears diagnosed with MR imaging versus arthroscopy: how reliable a standard is arthroscopy?

    Radiology

    (1991)
  • SP Fischer et al.

    Accuracy of diagnoses from magnetic resonance imaging of the knee

  • J Raunest et al.

    The clinical value of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of meniscal disorders

    J Bone Joint Surg

    (1991)
  • SF Quinn et al.

    Menisci of the knee: radial MR imaging correlated with arthroscopy in 259 patients

    Radiology

    (1992)
  • PA Ruwe et al.

    Can MR imaging effectively replace diagnostic arthroscopy?

    Radiology

    (1992)
  • RR Edelman et al.

    Magnetic resonance imaging (second of two parts)

    N Engl J Med

    (1993)
  • JH Mink et al.

    Tears of the anterior cruciate ligament and menisci of the knee: MR imaging evaluation

    Radiology

    (1988)
  • JS Grover et al.

    Posterior cruciate ligament: MR imaging

    Radiology

    (1990)
  • DL Burk et al.

    Meniscal and ganglion cysts of the knee: MR evaluation

    AJR

    (1988)
  • G Adam et al.

    Rheumatoid arthritis of the knee: value of gadopentate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging

    AJR

    (1991)
  • TN Vahey et al.

    Acute and chronic tears of the anterior cruciate ligament: differential features at MR imaging

    Radiology

    (1991)

    • Cited by (45)

    • Advances in High-Field MRI

      2018, Veterinary Clinics of North America - Small Animal Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Purchase cost is typically much less compared with high-field systems. High field has many advantages that make the cost differential less significant, including greater SNR resulting in improved image quality, thinner slice acquisition, and faster scan times.3–5 Ultrahigh-field MRI operates at a field strength of 7 T and up to 11.4 T. SNR and contrast are the two major contributors to the quality of the MR image, and increase with field strength.6,7

    • MR Imaging of the Elbow in the Injured Athlete

      2013, Radiologic Clinics of North America
      Citation Excerpt :

      Historically, these types of systems had low-field strength permanent magnets. They suffered from poor signal-to-noise, long scan times, poor spatial resolution, and an inability to obtain thin slices.3–5 In addition, frequency-selective FS (ie, fat sat) cannot be performed at low-field strength and STIR must be substituted.

    • Qualitative Comparison of 0.27T, 1.5T, and 3T Magnetic Resonance Images of the Normal Equine Foot

      2010, Journal of Equine Veterinary Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, the obtaining of high-quality images does not necessarily translate into greater diagnostic accuracy, and studies in human medicine demonstrate that in clinical conditions, in a variety of situations, higher field strength MR imaging does not confer higher diagnostic accuracy.46,47,51,53,58 Therefore, LF MR imaging has been proposed in human medicine as a cost-effective alternative to the more expensive HF MR imaging.51,59 In the horse, the major advantage of the LF system designed for standing horses is that general anesthesia is not necessary and only strong sedation is sufficient.32

    • High-resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging on a Standard Field-strength Magnetic Resonance System Compared to Arthroscopy in Patients with Suspected Meniscal Tears

      2008, Academic Radiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, improvements in standard systems, including better magnet homogeneity and improved coil technology and sequences, confirm the still-valuable role of standard-field MRI in the radiologic assessment of the meniscus. Another factor that plays a role in the value of standard MRI systems is the fact that there are approximately 2100 1-T systems still being used worldwide (13–18), despite the advances of 3-T MRI with recently reported sensitivities of 86% to 96% in the detection of meniscal tears (7–9). Our study demonstrates a good sensitivity that is in the upper range of reported sensitivities (range, 65%–95%) for detecting a meniscal tear with standard–field-strength MRI (4,19,20).

    • High- versus low-field MR imaging

      2005, Radiologic Clinics of North America

    • In-office MR imaging

      2002, Clinics in Sports Medicine
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text
    Copyright © 1995 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.