Abstract
Objective
To evaluate and compare the clinical utility of balanced turbo-field-echo (BTFE) magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) sequences obtained at 3 and 1.5 T.
Methods
We acquired three-dimensional (3D) BTFE MRCP scans with a navigator-gated technique at 3 T on a different day after 1.5 T in 39 consecutive patients. Two radiologists independently rated the image quality and visibility of anatomical structures (right and left hepatic duct, cystic duct, gallbladder, common bile duct, and main pancreatic duct) using a four-point scale. For quantitative analysis, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and acquisition time were evaluated.
Results
All visual scores tended to be higher for 1.5 T than 3 T images. There was a significant difference in the image quality and the depiction of the main pancreatic duct (p < 0.01). The image acquisition time was significantly shorter for 3 T than 1.5 T (199.3 ± 40.1 vs. 264.0 ± 86.5 s, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in SNR and CNR.
Conclusions
3D-BTFE MRCP scans acquired at 3 T were of sufficient image quality with respect to the biliary tree. SNR and CNR were comparable on 3 and 1.5 T scans, although the acquisition time was significantly shorter with the 3 T scanner.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Taylor AC, Little AF, Hennessy OF, et al. (2002) Prospective assessment of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for noninvasive imaging of the biliary tree. Gastrointest Endosc 55:17–22
Limanond P, Raman SS, Ghobrial RM, et al. (2004) The utility of MRCP in preoperative mapping of biliary anatomy in adult-to-adult living related liver transplant donors. J Magn Reson Imaging 19:209–215
Sodickson A, Mortele KJ, Barish MA, et al. (2006) Three-dimensional fast-recovery fast spin-echo MRCP: comparison with two-dimensional single-shot fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology 238:549–559
Nakaura T, Kidoh M, Maruyama N, et al. (2013) Usefulness of the SPACE pulse sequence at 1.5T MR cholangiography: comparison of image quality and image acquisition time with conventional 3D-TSE sequence. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:1014–1019
Arizono S, Isoda H, Maetani YS, et al. (2008) High-spatial-resolution three-dimensional MR cholangiography using a high-sampling-efficiency technique (SPACE) at 3T: comparison with the conventional constant flip angle sequence in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:685–690
Arizono S, Isoda H, Maetani YS, et al. (2010) High spatial resolution 3D MR cholangiography with high sampling efficiency technique (SPACE): comparison of 3T vs. 1.5T. Eur J Radiol 73:114–118
Itatani R, Namimoto T, Kajihara H, et al. (2013) Preoperative evaluation of the cystic duct for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison of navigator-gated prospective acquisition correction- and conventional respiratory-triggered techniques at free-breathing 3D MR cholangiopancreatography. Eur Radiol 23:1911–1918
Matsunaga K, Ogasawara G, Tsukano M, et al. (2012) Usefulness of the navigator-echo triggering technique for free-breathing three-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Magn Reson Imaging 31:396–400
Glockner JF, Lee CU (2014) Balanced steady state-free precession (b-SSFP) imaging for MRCP: techniques and applications. Abdom Imaging 39:1309–1322
Glockner JF, Saranathan M, Bayram E, et al. (2013) Breath-held MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) using a 3D Dixon fat-water separated balanced steady state free precession sequence. Magn Reson Imaging 31:1263–1270
Schick F (2005) Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 15:946–959
Merkle EM, Dale BM (2006) Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. Am J Roentgenol 186:1524–1532
Kuhl CK, Traber F, Schild HH (2008) Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. Part I. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology 246:675–696
Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J, et al. (2006) 3.0-versus 1.5-T MR cholangiography: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol 186:516–521
O’Regan DP, Fitzgerald J, Allsop J, et al. (2005) A comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Br J Radiol 78:894–898
Isoda H, Kataoka M, Maetani Y, et al. (2007) MRCP imaging at 3.0 T vs. 1.5 T: preliminary experience in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:1000–1006
Itatani R, Namimoto T, Takaoka H, et al. (2015) Clinical impact of 3-dimensional balanced turbo-field-echo magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 3 T: prospective intraindividual comparison with 3-dimensional turbo-spin-echo magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:19–24
Lanzman RS, Kropil P, Schmitt P, et al. (2012) Nonenhanced ECG-gated time-resolved 4D steady-state free precession (SSFP) MR angiography (MRA) of cerebral arteries: comparison at 1.5 T and 3 T. Eur J Radiol 81:e531–e535
Zho SY, Park J, Choi JY, et al. (2010) Respiratory motion compensated MR cholangiopancreatography at 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:726–732
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This prospective study received institutional review board's approval.
Informed consent
Prior informed consent for their participation was obtained from all patients.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Itatani, R., Namimoto, T., Atsuji, S. et al. Clinical application of navigator-gated three-dimensional balanced turbo-field-echo magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 3 T: prospective intraindividual comparison with 1.5 T. Abdom Radiol 41, 1285–1292 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0633-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0633-3