Intraindividual comparison of image quality in MR urography at 1.5 and 3 Tesla in an animal model

RoFo Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Rontgenstrahlen und der Bildgebenden Verfahren

Volumn 180, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 915-921

  Regier, Marc ^a   Nolte Ernsting, C ^a   Adam, C ^a   Kemper, J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

Author keywords

Furosemide; Gadopentetate dimeglumine; Kidney; Magnetic resonance; Urography

Indexed keywords

FUROSEMIDE; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; DOMESTIC PIG; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INDIVIDUALIZATION; LOW DRUG DOSE; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UROGRAPHY;

ANIMALS; ARTIFACTS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FUROSEMIDE; GADOLINIUM DTPA; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWINE; UROGRAPHY;

EID: 53849106487     PISSN: 14389029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1027715     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Aerts P, Van Hoe L, Bosmans H et al. Breath-hold MR urography using the HASTE technique. Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 543-545
2. Allkemper T, Tombach B, Heindel W. Gd-BOPTA-gestützte MR-Ausscheidungsurographie ohne Diuretikagabe. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2001; 173: 115-120
3. Cohnen M, Brause M, May P et al. Contrast-enhanced MR urography in the evaluation of renal transplants with urological complications. Clin Nephrol 2002; 58: 111-117
4. Garcia-Valtuille R. Garcia-Valtuille AI, Abascal F et al. Magnetic resonance urography: a pictorial overview. Br J Radiol 2006; 79: 614-626
5. Kocaoglu M, Ilica AT, Bulakbasi N et al. MR urography in pediatric uropathies with dilated urinary tracts. Diagn Interv Radiol 2005; 11: 225-232
6. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Adam GB, Gunther RW. MR urography: examination techniques and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 355-372
7. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Staatz G, Tacke J et al. MR urography today. Abdom Imaging 2003; 28: 191-209
8. Roy C, Saussine C, Guth S et al. MR urography in the evaluation of urinary tract obstruction. Abdom Imaging 1998; 23: 27-34
9. Staatz G, Nolte-Ernsting CC, Haage P et al. Kontrastangehobene T(1)-gewichtete MR-Urographie versus T(2)-gewichtete (HASTE) MR-Urographie im Kindesalter. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2001; 173: 991-996
10. Friedburg HG, Wimmer B, Hennig J et al. Erste klinische Erfahrungen mit der RARE-MR-Urographie. Urologe A 1987; 26: 309-316
11. Hagspiel KD, Butty S, Nandalur KR et al. Magnetic resonance urography for the assessment of potential renal donors: comparison of the RARE technique with a low-dose gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance urography technique in the absence of pharmacological and mechanical intervention. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 2230-2237
12. Rohrschneider WK, Becker K, Hoffend J et al. Combined static-dynamic MR urography for the simultaneous evaluation of morphology and function in urinary tract obstruction. II. Findings in experimentally induced ureteric stenosis. Pediatr Radiol 2000; 30: 523-532
13. Verswijvel GA, Oyen RH, Van Poppel HP et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of urologic disease: an all-in-one approach. Eur Radiol 2000; 10: 1614-1619
14. Nolte-Ernsting C, Bucker A, Adam G et al. T1-gewichtete MR-Ausscheidungs-urographie mittels Gd-DTPA und vorheriger niedrigdosierter Gabe eines Diuretikums. Fortschr Röntgenstr 1997; 167: 314-318
15. Nolte-Ernsting C, Staatz G, Wildberger J et al. MR-Urographie und CT-Urographie: Prinzipien, Untersuchungstechniken, Anwendungsmöglichkeiten. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2003; 175: 211-222
16. Nikken JJ, Krestin GP. MRI of the kidney-state of the art. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 2780-2793
17. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Bucker A, Adam GB et al. Gadolinium-enhanced excretory MR urography after low-dose diuretic injection: comparison with conventional excretory urography. Radiology 1998; 209: 147-157
18. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Tacke J, Adam GB et al. Diuretic-enhanced gadolinium excretory MR urography: comparison of conventional gradient-echo sequences and echo-planar imaging. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 18-27
19. Kramer U, Thiel C, Seeger A et al. Preoperative evaluation of potential living related kidney donors with high-spatial-resolution magnetic resonance (MR) angiography at 3 Tesla: comparison with intraoperative findings. Invest Radiol 2007; 42: 747-755
20. Edelstein WA, Glover GH, Hardy CJ et al. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Med 1986; 3: 604-618
21. Schindera ST, Merkle EM, Dale BM et al. Abdominal magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T what is the ultimate gain in signal-to-noise ratio? Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 1236-1243
22. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM et al. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004; 230: 652-659
23. Gold GE, Han E, Stainsby J et al. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 343-351
24. Stanisz GJ, Odrobina EE, Pun J et al. T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54: 507-512
25. Edelman RR, Salanitri G, Brand R et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas at 3.0 tesla: qualitative and quantitative comparison with 1.5 tesla. Invest Radiol 2006; 41: 175-180
26. Masi JN, Sell CA, Phan C et al. Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model. Radiology 2005; 236: 140-150
27. Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J et al. 3.0- Versus 1.5-T MR cholangiography: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 516-521
28. Sommer T, Hackenbroch M, Hofer U et al. Coronary MR angiography at 3.0 T versus that at 1.5 T: initial results in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease. Radiology 2005; 234: 718-725
29. Kaufman L, Kramer DM, Crooks LE et al. Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging. Radiology 1989; 173: 265-267
30. Chu WC, Lam WW, Chan KW et al. Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance urography for assessing drainage in dilated pelvicalyceal systems with moderate renal function: preliminary results and comparison with diuresis renography. BJU Int 2004; 93: 830-834
31. El-Diasty T, Mansour O, Farouk A. Diuretic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance urography versus intravenous urography for depiction of nondilated urinary tracts. Abdom Imaging 2003; 28: 135-145
32. Nolte-Ernsting C, Adam G, Bucker A et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance urography. First experimental results with a polymeric gadolinium bloodpool agent. Invest Radiol 1997; 32: 418-423
33. Bernstein MA, Huston 3 rd J, Ward HA. Imaging artifacts at 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 24: 735-746