MRI of the foot and ankle: Diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of a dedicated low field MR scanner

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 711-716

  Verhoek, Guido ^a,b   Zanetti, Marco ^a   Duewell, Stefan ^b   Zollinger, Hans ^a   Hodler, Juerg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Dedicated low field MR system; Foot and ankle; Patient acceptance

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANKLE INJURY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FOOT INJURY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0031862568     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1880080330     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Crim JR, Cracchiolo A, Bassett LW, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the hindfoot. Foot Ankle 1989; 10:1-7.
2. Rosenberg ZS, Cheung Y, Jahss MH. Computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle tendons: an overview. Foot Ankle 1988; 8:297-307.
3. Kneeland JB, Macrandar S, Middleton WD, et al. MR imaging of the normal ankle: correlation with anatomic sections. Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151:117-123.
4. Solomon MA, Oloff Solomon J. Magnetic resonance imaging in the foot and ankle. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1988; 5:945-965.
5. Kingston S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle and foot. Clin Sports Med 1988; 7:15-28.
6. Noto AM, Cheung Y, Rosenberg ZS, Norman A. MR imaging of the ankle: normal variants. Radiology 1989; 170:121-124.
7. Duewell SH, Ceckler TL, Ong K, et al. Musculoskeletal MR imaging at 4 T and at 1.5 T: comparison of relaxation times and image contrast. Radiology 1995; 196:551-555.
8. Elster AD. Questions and answers in magnetic resonance imaging. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, 1994; 62-64.
9. Parlev DC, Ceullberg GT. Signal to noise efficiency in magnetic resonance imaging. Med Phys 1990; 17:250-257.
10. Bottomley PA, Forster TH, Argesinger RE, Pfeiffer LM. Review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanism from 1 to 100 MHz colon depends on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision and age. Med Phys 1984; 11:425-448.
11. Chen CN, Sank VJ, Cohen SM, Hoult DI. The field dependence of NMR imaging. I. Laboratory assessment of signal-to-noise ratio and power deposition. Magn Reson Med 1986; 3:722-729.
12. Hoult DI, Chen CN, Sank VJ. The field dependence of NMR imaging. Magn Reson Med 1986; 3:730-746.
13. Henkelmann RM, Wood MC. Magnetic field dependence of the breathing artifact. Magn Reson Imaging 1986; 4:387-392.
14. Duewell SH, Jezzard P, Balaban RS, et al. The influence of relaxation values on motion artifacts in GRASS MRI. In: Proceedings of the 3rd annual scientific meeting of the Society of Magnetic Resonance. Nice: Society of Magnetic Resonance, 1995; 757.
15. Kinnunen J, Bondestam S, Kivioja A, et al. Diagnostic performance of low field MRI in acute knee injuries. Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 12:1155-1160.
16. Kersting Sommerhoff B, Gerhardt P, Golder W, et al. [MRI of the knee joint: first results of a comparison of 0,2-T specialized system and 1,5-T high field strength magnet]. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1995; 162:390-395.
17. Parizel PM, Dijkstra HA, Geenen GP, et al. Low-field versus high-field MR imaging of the knee: a comparison of signal behaviour and diagnostic performance. Eur J Radiol 1995; 19: 132-138.
18. Vellet AD, Lee DH, Munk PL, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament tear: prospective evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of middle- and high-field strength MR imaging at 1.5 and 0.5 T. Radiology 1995; 197:826-830.
19. Masciocchi C, Mastantuono M, De Bac S, et al. [Technologic advances in magnetic resonance imaging: permanent low-field magnets dedicated to the study of the joints. Clinical results]. Radiol Med (Torino) 1995; 89:593-599.