1 / 11

Scan session 9 June 2005, optimising hip protocols at 3T

Scan session 9 June 2005, optimising hip protocols at 3T 3 volunteers with IV Gd contrast, T1W gradient echo sequences in attempt to separate cartilage layers (indirect arthrographic effect) Barry, Karl given Omniscan, non-ionic Gd based contrast agent

svineyard
Download Presentation

Scan session 9 June 2005, optimising hip protocols at 3T

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Scan session 9 June 2005, optimising hip protocols at 3T 3 volunteers with IV Gd contrast, T1W gradient echo sequences in attempt to separate cartilage layers (indirect arthrographic effect) Barry, Karl given Omniscan, non-ionic Gd based contrast agent Yvon given Magnevist, ionic Gd based contrast agent which should have slower uptake into cartilage Compare a WE 3D FFE 14min sequence which we optimised on 18 May 2005 with a THRIVE standard sequence used in arthrography

  2. Subject: Karl Embleton THRIVE 3D T1W TFE SPAIR SENSE-Torso coil CLEAR on 368 x 512 matrix, 200 mm FOV 100 slices, 0.75mm thick TE 3.5ms, TR 7.7ms flip angle 7o NSA 3 Scan time 11:13 Comments standard sequence used with indirect arthrography, but not optimised for the hip. Low SNR but maybe try thicker (or overcontiguous) slices?

  3. Subject: Karl Embleton 3D_WATSc 3D T1W FFE Proset SENSE-Torso coil CLEAR on 400 x 512 matrix, 200 mm FOV 100 slices, 0.75mm overcontiguous TE 4.7ms, TR 15ms flip angle 12o NSA 4 Scan time 14:22 Comments Approx 1hour post contrast due to scanner crashing. See interference artifacts- due to proximity to body coil?

  4. Subject: Karl Embleton 3D_WATSc 3D T1W FFE Proset SENSE-Torso coil CLEAR on 400 x 512 matrix, 200 mm FOV 100 slices, 0.75mm overcontiguous TE 4.7ms, TR 15ms flip angle 12o NSA 4 Scan time 14:22 Comments Scan from 18 May 05 without contrast for comparison No artifacts seen

  5. Side-by-side comparison no contrast with contrast

  6. Subject: Barry Whitnall THRIVE 3D T1W TFE SPAIR SENSE-Torso coil CLEAR on 368 x 512 matrix, 200 mm FOV 100 slices, 0.75mm thick TE 3.5ms, TR 7.7ms flip angle 7o NSA 3 Scan time 11:13 Comments Again, low SNR but no artifacts

  7. Subject: Barry Whitnall 3D_WATSc 3D T1W FFE Proset SENSE-Torso coil CLEAR on 400 x 512 matrix, 200 mm FOV 100 slices, 0.75mm overcontiguous TE 4.7ms, TR 15ms flip angle 12o NSA 4 Scan time 14:22 Comments More interference artifacts than with Karl due to larger subject? SNR lower for same reason?

  8. Subject: Yvon Watson 3D_WATSc 3D T1W FFE Proset SENSE-Torso coil CLEAR on 400 x 512 matrix, 200 mm FOV 100 slices, 0.75mm overcontiguous TE 4.7ms, TR 15ms flip angle 12o NSA 4 Scan time 14:22 Comments No interference atrifacts (small subject?), but can see some flow artifacts

  9. Subject: Yvon Watson 3D_WATSc 3D T1W FFE Proset SENSE-Torso coil CLEAR on 400 x 512 matrix, 200 mm FOV 100 slices, 0.75mm overcontiguous TE 4.7ms, TR 15ms flip angle 35o NSA 4 Scan time 14:22 Comments Increase flip angle to increase contrast but flow artifacts much worse

  10. Subject: Yvon Watson 3D_WATSc 3D T1W FFE Proset SENSE-Torso coil CLEAR on 400 x 512 matrix, 200 mm FOV 100 slices, 0.75mm overcontiguous TE 4.7ms, TR 21.22ms flip angle 35o NSA 3 WFS 4.54 flow comp on Scan time 10:10 Comments With flow comp, scan time longer (TR longer) so reduce NSA to 3 and increase WFS to max to recover some lost SNR. Flow artifacts still there- pulsatile flow?

  11. Summary Initial results suggest IV contrast may be useful to help separate cartilage layers, but protocol not optimised yet and artifacts may be a problem Questions Why are artifacts not seen on THRIVE sequence? Is SPAIR fatsat affected less than Proset WE by field inhomegeneities? Can we reduce artifacts by off-centre positioning in the main magnet? (might be difficult for larger subjects) Is there anything we can do about the flow artifacts? What is optimum time after injection to scan? Can we improve uptake of contrast agent in joint space by more exercise?

More Related