한국방사선학회논문지 (Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology)

  • 제12권2호
  • /
  • Pages.193-199
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1976-0620(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-0633(eISSN)
한국방사선학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

강자성 인공물 발생에 대한 자기공명영상 질 평가: 1.5T와 3.0T 비교

Assessment of Magnetic Resonance Image Quality For Ferromagnetic Artifact Generation: Comparison with 1.5T and 3.0T.

  • 구은회 (청주대학교 방사선학과)
  • Goo, Eun-Hoe (Department of Radiological Science, Cheongju University)
  • 투고 : 2018.02.20
  • 심사 : 2018.04.30
  • 발행 : 2018.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 총 15명의 정상인 지원자를 대상으로 1.5T와 3.0T의 자기공명영상기기(Philips, Medical System, Achieva)를 이용하여 강자성 인공물을 최소화하기 위한 최적의 Tesla를 알아보고자 하였다. 평가는 신호대 잡음비 평가, 강자성 인공물이 형성된 부위의 길이와 Histogram을 평가하였다. 분석방법으로는 T1, T2 sagittal 영상의 Background의 4 부위에 관심영역을 설정하고 L3, L4, L5의 각 추체부에 관심영역을 설정한 후 신호대잡음비 값을 측정하였고, 인공물이 형성된 3 부위에 관심영역을 설정하고 길이 값을 측정하였고, Image J 프로그램을 이용해 인공물 영역의 히스토그램 분포 값을 측정하였다. 본 실험에 대한 결과로 신호대 잡음비 평가에서 L3에서는 1.5T와 3.0T 사이에 별 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났고, L4, L5에서는 큰 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다(p<0.05). 강자성 인공물이 형성된 3 부위의 길이는 3.0T에 비해 1.5T가 더 짧아 주변조직에 대한 진단적 정보를 더 얻을 수 있는 것으로 나타났다(p<0.05). Histogram평가에서는 3.0T보다 1.5T가 Count값이 높게 나타났다(p<0.05). 결론적으로 1.5T와 3.0T의 신호대 잡음비, 강자성 인공물의 길이, Histogram을 비교 평가해 봤을 때, Spine MRI 검사 시에 PLIF 등 디스크 수술을 받은 환자에게는 Low Tesla로 검사가 최적의 영상정보를 얻을 수 있었다.

In this research, 15 patients were diagnosed with 1.5T and 3.0T MRI instruments (Philips, Medical System, Achieva) to minize Ferromagnetic artifact and find the optimized Tesla. Based on the theory that the 3.0T, when compared to 1.5T, show relatively high signal-to-ratio(SNR), Scan time can be shortened or adjust the image resolution. However, when using the 3.0T MRI instruments, various artifact due to the magnetic field difference can degrade the diagnostic information. For the analysis condition, area of interest is set at the background of the T1, T2 sagittal image followed by evaluation of L3, L4, L5 SNR, length of 3 parts with Ferromagnetic artifact, and Histogram. The validity evaluation was performed by using the independent t test. As a result, for the SNR evaluation, mere difference in value was observed for L3 between 1.5T and 3.0T, while big differences were observed for both L4, and L5(p<0.05). Shorter length was observed for the 1.5T when observing 3 parts with Ferromagnetic artifact, thus we can conclude that 3.0T can provide more information on about peripheral tissue diagnostic information(p<0.05). Finally, 1.5T showed higher counts values for the Histogram evaluation(p<0.05). As a result, when we have compared the 1.5T and 3.0T with SNR, length of Ferromagnetic artifact, Histogram, we believe that using a Low Tesla for Spine MRI test can achieve the optimal image information for patients with disk operation like PLIF, etc. in the past.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. R. Safier, C. Cleves-Bayon, I. Vaisleib, A. Siddiqui, G. Zuccoli, "Magnetic resonance angiography evidence of vasospasm in children with suspected acute hemiplegic migraine," Journal of Child Neurology, Vol. 11, No. 12, pp. 789-792, 2014.
  2. G. Zhang, R. Du, J. Qian, X. Zheng, X. Tian, D. Cai, J. He, Y. Wu, W. Huang, Y. Wang, X. Zhang, K. Zhong, D. Zou, Z. Wu, "A tailored nanosheet decorated with a metallized dendrimer for angiography and magnetic resonance imaging-guided combined chemotherapy," Nanoscale Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 488-498, 2017.
  3. Y. Seo, D. Corona, N. Hall, "On the theoretical maximum achievable signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of piezoelectric microphones," Sensors Actuators A Physical, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 341-346, 2017.
  4. C. Netto, L. Fonseca, B. Fritz, S. Stern, E. Raithel, M. Nittka, LC. Schon, J. Fritz, "Metal artifact reduction MRI of total ankle arthroplasty implants," European Radiology, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp. 330-420, 2017.
  5. F. Guan, Y. Sun, L. Zhu, G. Guan, M. Chen, Z. Chi, D. Tian, Z. Yu, J. Gu, "Risk factors of postoperative sacroiliac joint pain for posterior lumbar surgery: An at least 2-year follow-up retrospective study," World Neurosurgery, Vol. 10, No. 10, pp. 31976-31979, 2017.
  6. P. B. Derman, TJ. Albert, "Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis," Current Reviews in Musculo skeletal Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp.530-538, 2017.
  7. K. Phan, M Fadhil, N. Chang, G. Giang, C. Gragnaniello, R. Mobbs, "Effect of smoking status on successful arthrodesis, clinical outcome and complications after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)," World Neurosurgery, Vol. 9, No. 17, pp. 1878-8750, 2017.
  8. J. K. Yue, P. Upadhyayula, H. Deng, DC. Sing, JD. Ciacci, "Risk factors for 30-day outcomes in elective anterior versus posterior cervical fusion: A matched cohort analysis" Journal of Craniovertertebral junction and Spine, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 222-230, 2017.
  9. Z. Shang, Y. Zhang, D. Zhang, W. Ding, Y. Shen, "Clinical and Radiological Analysis of Bryan Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement for "Skip" Multi-Segment Cervical Spondylosis: Long-Term Follow-Up Results," Medical Science Monitor, Vol. 4, No. 23, pp. 5254-5263, 2017.
  10. D. S. Ryu, J. Y. Park, S. U. Kuh, D. K. Chin, K. S. Kim, Y. E. Cho, K. H. Kim, "Surgical Outcomes After Segmental Limited Surgery for Adjacent Segment Disease: The Consequences of Makeshift Surgery," World Neurosurgery, Vol. 10, No. 16, pp. 1878-8750, 2017.
  11. X. Ma, Y. Du, S. Wang, J. Ma, T. Wang, M. Kuang, B. Ma,"Adjacent segment degeneration after intervertebral fusion surgery by means of cervical block vertebrae," European Spine Journal, Vol. 10, No. 10, pp. 586-617, 2017.
  12. X. Rong, J. Lou, H. Li, Y. Meng, H. Liu, "How to choose when implants of adjacent height both fit the disc space properly in single-level cervical artificialdisc replacement," Medicine, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 694-695, 2017.
  13. H. J. Park, S. Y. Lee, K. A Kang, E. Y Kim, H. K Shin, S. J. Park, JH. Park, E Kim, "Comparison of two-dimensional fast spin-echo T2-weighted sequences and three-dimensional volume isotropic T2-weighted fast spin-echo (VISTA) MRI in the evaluation of triangular fibrocartilage of the wrist," The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 12, No. 10, pp. 1259-1270, 2017.
  14. S. H. Lee, Y. H Lee, J. S Suh, "Accelerating knee MR imaging: Compressed sensing in isotropic threedimensional fast spin-echo sequence," Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 10, No. 16, pp. 90-97, 2017.
  15. S. J. ,Hoogcarspel, S. E. Zijlema, R. H. N. Tijssen, L. G. W. Kerkmeijer, I. M. Jürgenliemk-Schulz, J. J. W. Lagendijk, B. W. Raaymakers, "Characterization of the first RF coil dedicated to 1.5 T MR guided radiotherapy," Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 63, No. 2, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aaa303, 2018.
  16. N. Tomasovicov, J. Kovac, V. Gdovinova, N. Eber, T. Toth-Katona, J. Jadzyn, P. Kopcansky, "Alternating current magnetic susceptibility of a ferronematic," Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 2515-2520, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.8.251
  17. G. C. Mathews, C. S. Goldenstein, "Wavelength-modulated planar laser-induced fluorescence for imaging gases," Optics Letters, Vol. 42, No. 24, pp. 5278-5281, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.42.005278
  18. K. Matsukawa, Y. Abe, Y. Yanai, Y. Yato, "Regional Hounsfield unit measurement of screw trajectory for predicting pedicle screw fixation using cortical bone trajectory: a retrospective cohort study," Acta Neurochirurgica(Wien), Vol. 10, No. 7, pp. 1007, 2017.
  19. N. Agarwal, R. F. Heary, P Agarwal P, "Adjacent-segment disease after thoracic pedicle screw fixation," Journal of Neurosurosurgery. Spine, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 1-7, 2017.
  20. J. Fu , Z. Yao, Z. Wang, G. Cui, M. Ni, X. Li, J. Chen, "Surgical Treatment of Osteoporotic Degenerative Spinal Deformity with Expandable Pedicle Screw Fixation: 2-year follow-up clinical study," Orthopaedics and Traumatol Surgery and Research, Vol.17, No.4, pp. 568-1877, 2017.
  21. I. Todt, A. Tittel, A. Ernst, P. Mittmann, S. Mutze, "Pain Free 3 T MRI Scans in Cochlear Implantees," Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, Vol. 38, No. 10, e401-e404, 2017.
  22. J. C. Mandell, J. A. Rhodes, N. Shah, G. C. Gaviola, A. H. Gomoll , S. E. Smith,"Routine clinical knee MR reports: comparison of diagnostic performanceat 1.5 T and 3.0 T for assessment of the articular cartilage," Skeletal Radiolgy, Vol. 46, No. 11, pp. 1487-1498, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2714-6
  23. B. J Soher, B. M. Dale, E. M. Merkle, " A review of MR physics: 3T versus 1.5T," Magneic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America, Vol. 15, No.3, pp. 277-290, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2007.06.002