Office-based Versus High-field Strength MRI Diagnostic and Technical Considerations

Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 31-39

  Sanal, Hatice Tuba ^a   Cardoso, Fabiano ^a   Chen, Lina ^a   Chung, Christine ^a  

^a VA SAN DIEGO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Extremity; Low field MRI; Musculoskeletal; Office based MRI systems

Indexed keywords

ANKLE INJURY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ELBOW INJURY; FOOT INJURY; HAND INJURY; HIP INJURY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KNEE INJURY; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOFREQUENCY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHOULDER INJURY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; WRIST INJURY;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; JOINT DISEASES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILE HEALTH UNITS; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES; OFFICE VISITS; SPORTS MEDICINE;

EID: 61849173426     PISSN: 10628592     EISSN: 15381951     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/JSA.0b013e3181960288     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Cigna Healthcare Coverage Position. Subject Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Low-Field, Revised Date May 15. 2007. Coverage Position Number: 0444.
2. Marti-Bonmati L, Kormano M. MR equipment acquisition strategies: low-field or high-field scanners. Eur Radiol. 1997; 7:S263-S268.
3. Hayashi N, Watanabe Y, Masumoto T. et al. Utilization of low-field MR scanners. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2004:3:27-38.
4. Ghazinoor S, Crues JV, Crowley C. Low-field musculoskeletal MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007:25:234-244.
5. Masciocchi C, Barile A, Satragno L. Musculoskeletal MRI: dedicated systems. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:250-255.
6. Magee T. Shapiro M. Williams D. Comparison of high-field-strength MRI of the shoulder. AJR. 2003;181:1211-1215.
7. Sheldon P. Kaufman L, Carlson J. Forces and torques produced by a 640-gauss permanent magnet of ferromagnetic objects. J Neuroimaging. 1991;1:184-190.
8. Kersting-Sommerhoff B. Hof N. Lenz M. et al. MRI of peripheral joints with a low-field dedicated system: a reliable and cost-effective alternative to high-field units? Eur Radiol. 1996:6:561-565.
9. Peterfy CG. Roberts T. Gcnant HK. Dedicated extremity MR imaging: an emerging technology. Magn Reson Imaging Clin, N Am. 1998;6:849-870.
10. Chandnani VP. Yeager TD, DeBerardino T. et al. Glenoid labral tears: evaluation with MR imaging. MR arthrography, and CT arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161: 1229-1235.
11. Flannigan B. Kursunoglu-Brahme S. Snyder S. et al. MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison with conventional MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990:155:829-832.
12. Palmer WF, Brown JH, Rosenthal DI. Labral-ligamenlous complex of the shoulder: evaluation with MR arthrography. Radiology. 1994;190:645-651.
13. Loew R, Kreitner KF, Runkel M. et al. MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0.2 T) versus high-field (1.5T) imaging. Eur Radiol. 2000:10:989- 996.
14. Allmann KH, Walter O. Laubenberger. J. et al. Magnetic resonance diagnosis of the anterior labrum and capsule. Effect of field strength on efficacy. Invest Radiol. 1998:33: 415-420.
15. Zlatkin M. Hoffman C. Shellock F. Assessment of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using an extremity MR system: MR results compared to surgical findings from a multi-center study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004:19:623-631.
16. Kreitner KF. Loew R, Runkel M. et al. Low-field MR arthrography of the shoulder joint: technique, indications, and clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2003:13:320-329.
17. Shellock FG. Bert JM, Fritts HM, et al. Evaluation of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using a 0.2-Tcsla extremity- magnetic resonance (MR) system: MR results compared to surgical findings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001:14:763-770.
18. Tung GA, Entzian D, Green A, el al. High-field and low-field MRI of superior glenoid labral tears and associated tendon injuries. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174:1107-1114.
19. Oei EH. Nikken JJ, Verstijnen AC, et al. MRI of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Radiology. 2003;226:837-848.
20. Cotten A. Delfaut E, Demondion X. et al. MR imaging of the knee at 0.2 and 1.5T: correlation with surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000:174:1093-1097.
21. Oei EH, Nikken JJ, Ginai AZ, et al. Acute knee trauma: value of a short dedicated extremity MRI examination for prediction of subsequent treatment. Radiology. 2005:234:125-133.
22. Riel K, Kersting-Sommerhoff B, Reinisch M. et al. Prospective comparison of ARTOSCAN-MRI and arthroscopy in knee joint injuries. Z On hop. 1996;134:430-434.
23. 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.
24. Breitenseher M, Trattnig S, Gabler C. et al. MRI in radiologically occult scaphoid fractures. Initial experiences with 1.0 Tesla (whole body middle-field equipment) versus 0.2 Tesla (dedicated low-field equipment). Radiologe. 1997:37: 812-818.
25. Brydle A, Raby N. Early MRI in the management of clinical scaphoid fracture. Br J Radiol. 2003;76:296-300.
26. Bird P. Ejbjerg B, Lassere M, et al. A multireader reliability study comparing conventional high-field magnetic resonance imaging with extremity low-field MRI in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:854-856.
27. Taouli B, Zaim S. Peterfy CG. et al. Rheumatoid arthritis of the hand and wrist: comparison of three imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:937-943.
28. Woertler K, Strothmann M. Tombach B. et al. Detection of articular cartilage lesions: experimental evaluation of low- and high-field-strength MR Imaging at 0.18 and 1.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000; 11:678-685.
29. Schirmer C, Scheel AK, Althoff CE. et al. Diagnostic quality and scoring of synovitis, tenosynovitis and erosions in low-field MRI of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with conventional MRI. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:522-529.
30. Verhoek G, Zanetti M, Duewell S, et al. MRI of the foot and ankle: diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of a dedicated low field MR scanner. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998: 8:711-716.
31. Hillman BJ, Joseph CA, Mabry MR. et al. Frequency and costs of diagnostic imaging in office practice: a comparison of self-referring and radiologist-referring physicians. N Engl J Med. 1990:323:1604-1608.
32. Hillman BJ. Olson GT, Griffith PE. et al. Physicians" utilization and charges for outpatient diagnostic imaging in a Medicare population. JAMA. 1992;268:2050-2054.
33. Zientek DM. Physician entrepreneurs, self-referral, and conflicts of interest: an overview. HEC Forum. 2003:15:111-133.
34. Evens RG. What to do about self-referral? Radiology. 1993: 186:75-76.
35. Ho V. Advanced diagnostic imaging: benefit or burden? Med Care. 2008:46:455-457.