Pediatric musculoskeletal imaging at 3 tesla

Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 181-195

  Chavhan, Govind B ^a,b   Babyn, Paul S ^a,b  

^a HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

3 Tesla; Children; Musculoskeletal imaging

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CANCER STAGING; CARTILAGE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; METASTASIS; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT SAFETY; SEDATION; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

BONE AND BONES; BONE MARROW; CARTILAGE; CHILD; HUMANS; JOINTS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM;

EID: 70350513819     PISSN: 10897860     EISSN: 1098898X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1237688     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Kuhl C K., Träber F, Schild H H. Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. Part I. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology 2008 246 (3) 675-696
2. Kuhl C K., Träber F, Gieseke J et al. Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. Part II. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology 2008 247 (1) 16-35
3. Lee V S., Hecht E M., Taouli B, Chen Q, Prince K, Oesingmann N. Body and cardiovascular MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 2007 244 (3) 692-705
4. Machann J, Schlemmer H P., Schick F. Technical challenges and opportunities of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. Phys Med 2008 24 (2) 63-70
5. Chang K J., Kamel I R., Macura K J., Bluemke D A. 3.0-T MR imaging of the abdomen: comparison with 1.5 T. Radiographics 2008 28 (7) 1983-1998
6. Kuo R, Panchal M, Tanenbaum L, Crues J V. III. 3.0 Tesla imaging of the musculoskeletal system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 25 (2) 245-261
7. Saupe N, Prüssmann K P., Luechinger R, Bösiger P, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR imaging of the wrist: comparison between 1.5- and 3-T MR imagingpreliminary experience. Radiology 2005 234 (1) 256-264
8. Masi J N., Sell C A., Phan C et al. Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 vs that at 1.5T: preliminary results in a porcine model. Radiology 2005 236 140-150
9. Eckstein F, Charles H C., Buck R J. et al. Accuracy and precision of quantitative assessment of cartilage morphology by magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0T. Arthritis Rheum 2005 52 (10) 3132-3136 (Pubitemid 41447094)
10. Kijowski R, Blankenbaker D G., Davis K W., Shinki K, Kaplan L D., De Smet A A. Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. Radiology 2009 250 (3) 839-848
11. Gold G E., Suh B, Sawyer-Glover A, Beaulieu C. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004 183 (5) 1479-1486 (Pubitemid 44210621)
12. Anderson M L., Skinner J A., Felmlee J P., Berger R A., Amrami K K. Diagnostic comparison of 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla preoperative MRI of the wrist in patients with ulnar-sided wrist pain. J Hand Surg [Am] 2008 33 (7) 1153-1159
13. Schmidt G P., Wintersperger B, Graser A, Baur-Melnyk A, Reiser M F., Schoenberg S O. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance imaging applications at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: a comparative study. Invest Radiol 2007 42 (6) 449-459
14. Fenchel M, Doering J, Seeger A et al. Ultrafast whole-body MR angiography with two-dimensional parallel imaging at 3.0 T: feasibility study. Radiology 2009 250 (1) 254-263