Advantages and pitfalls in 3T MR brain imaging: A pictorial review

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 26, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 2229-2237

  Schmilz, Bernd L ^a   Aschoff, Andrik J ^a   Hoffmann, Martin H K ^a   Grön, Georg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ULM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECHO CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ABSORPTION; ACCELERATION; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PROTON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; REVIEW; ARTICLE; BRAIN; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY;

BRAIN; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

EID: 32944469372     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Schultz E, Felix R. [Rapid magnetic resonance tomography sequences: theoretical principles and clinical imaging characteristics]. Digitale Bilddiagn 1988;8:50-58
2. de Zwart JA, Ledden PJ, van Gelderen P, et al. Signal-to-noise ratio and parallel imaging performance of a 16-channel receive-only brain coil array at 3.0 tesla. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:22-26
3. Albert MS, Gates GD, Driehuys B, et al. Biological magnetic resonance imaging using laser-polarized 129Xe. Nature 1994;370:199-201
4. Middleton H, Black RD, Saam B, et al. MR imaging with hyperpolarized 3He gas. Magn Reson Med 1995;33:271-275
5. Schad LR, Bachert P, Bock M, et al. Hyperpolarized gases: a new type of MR contrast agents? Acta Radiol Suppl 1997;412:43-46
6. Lin W, An H, Chen Y, et al. Practical consideration for 3T imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2003;11:615-639
7. Schick F. Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 2005;15:946-959
8. Norris DG. High field human imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;18:519-529
9. Frayne P, Goodyear BG, Dickhoff P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 tesla: challenges and advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Invest Radiol 2003;38:385-402
10. Baudendistel KT, Heverhagen JT, Knopp MV. [Clinical MR at 3 tesla: current status.] Radiologe 2004;44:11-18
11. Kim DS, Garwood M. High-field magnetic resonance techniques for brain research. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2003;13:612-619
12. Ross JS. The high-field-strength curmudgeon. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:168-169
13. Shapiro MD, Magee T. Williams D. Ramnath R, Ross JS. The time for 3T clinical imaging is now. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25: 1628-1629; author reply 1629
14. Pattany PM. 3T MR imaging: the pros and cons. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1455-1456
15. Collins CM, Liu W, Schreiber W, et al. Central brightening due to constructive interference with, without, and despite dielectric resonance. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:192-196
16. Hoult DL, Phil D. Sensitivity and power deposition in a high-field imaging experiment. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:46-67
17. Adrians G, Van do Moortele PF, Wiesinger F, et al. Transmit and receive transmission line arrays for 7 tesla parallel imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:434-445
18. Naughan IT, Adriany G, Snyder CJ, et al. Efficient high-frequency body coil for high-field MRI. Magn Kesnn Mad 2004;52:851-859
19. Hashemi RH, Bradley WG, Lisanti CJ. MRI: the basics. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2004:141-142
20. Hashemi RH, Bradley WG, Lisanti CJ. MRI: the basics. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2004:39
21. Graf H, Schnick F, Claussen CD, Seemann MD. MR visualization of the inner ear structures: comparison of 1.5 tesla and 3 tesla images. Pofo 2004;176:17-20
22. Hennig J, Scheffler K. Hyperechoes. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:6-12
23. Paschal CB, Morris HD, K-space in the clinic. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19:145-159
24. Pruessmann KP. Parallel imaging at high field strength: synergies and joint potential. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:237-244
25. Bammer R. Schoenberg SO. Current concepts and advances in clinical parallel magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:129-158
26. Larkman DJ, Atkinson D, Hajnal JV. Artifact reduction using parallel imaging methods. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:267-275
27. Blaimer M, Breuer F, Mueller M, et al. SMASH, SENSE, PILS, GRAPPA: how to choose the optimal method. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:223-236
28. Heidemann RM, Ozsarluk O, Panzel PM, et al. A brief review of parallel magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2323-2337
29. Heidemann RM, Griswold MA, Muller M, et al. [Feasibilities and limitations of high field parallel MRI]. Radiologe 2004;44:49-55
30. Hu X, Norris DG, Advances in high-field magnetic resonance imaging. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2004;6:157-184
31. Ethofer T, Mader I, Seeger U, et al. Comparison of longitudinal metabolite relaxation times in different regions of the human brain at 1.5 and 3 tesla. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:1296-1301
32. Michaeli S, Garwood M, Zhu XH, et al. Proton T2 relaxation study of water, N-acetylaspartate, and creatine in human brain using Hahn and Carr-Purcell spin echoes at 4T and 7T. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:629-633
33. Wansapura JP, Holland SK, Dunn RS, Ball WS Jr. NMR relaxation times in the human brain at 3.0 tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;9:531-538
34. Schmitz BL, Grön G, Brausewetter F, et al. Enhancing gray-to-white matter contrast in 3T T1 spin-echo brain scans by optimizing flip angle. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2000-2004
35. Mills TC, Ortendahl DA, Hylton NM, et al. Partial flip angle MR imaging. Radiology 1987;162:531-539
36. Kato H, Izumiyama M, Izumiyama K, et al. Silent cerebral microbleeds on T2*-weighted MRI: correlation with stroke subtype, stroke recurrence, and leukoaraiosis. Stroke 2002;33:1536-1540
37. Allkemper T, Tombach B. Schwindt W, et al. Acute and subacute intracerebral hemorrhages: comparison of MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T: initial experience. Radiology 2004;232:874-881
38. Hennig J, Speck O, Koch MA, Weiller C. Functional magnetic resonance imaging: a review of methodological aspects and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;18:1-15
39. Chen W, Ugurhil K. High spatial resolution functional magnetic resonance imaging at very-high-magnetic field. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:63-78
40. Silvennoinen MJ, Clingman CS, Golay X, et al. Comparison of the dependence of blood R2 and R2* on oxygen saturation at 1.5 and 4.7 tesla. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:47-60
41. Yacoub E, Shmuel A, Pfeuffer J, et al. Imaging brain function in humans at 7 tesla. Magn Reson Med 2001;45:588-594
42. Bernstein MA, Huston J 3rd. Lin C, et al. High-resolution intracranial and cervical MRA at 3.0T: technical considerations and initial experience. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:955-962
43. Gaa J, Weidauer S, Requardt M, et al. Comparison of intracranial 3D-ToF-MRA with and without parallel acquisition techniques at 1.5T and 3.0T: preliminary results. Acta Radiol 2004;45;327-332
44. Willinek WA, Gieseke J, von Falkenhausen M, et al. Sensitivity encoding (SENSE) for high spatial resolution time-of-flight MR angiography of the intracranial arteries at 3.0 T. Rofo 2004;176:21-26
45. Willinek WA, Born M, Simon B, et al. Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-1 imaging and 1.5-T imaging-initial experience. Radiology 2003;229:913-920
46. Campeau NG, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 tesla: initial clinical experience. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001;12:183-204
47. Al-Kwifi O, Emery DJ, Wilman AH. Vessel contrast at three tesla in timi-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography of the intracranial and carotid arteries. Magn Reson Imaging 2002;20:181-187
48. Gibbs GF, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, et al. Improved image quality of intracranial aneurysms: 3.0-T versus 1.5-T time-of-flight MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:84-87
49. Gibbs GF, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, et al. 3.0-tesla MR angiography of intracranial aneurysms: comparison of time-of-flight and contrast-enhanced techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:97-102