Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 46, Issue 12, pp 1721–1728 | Cite as

Magnetic resonance cinematography of the fingers: a 3.0 Tesla feasibility study with comparison of incremental and continuous dynamic protocols

  • Thomas BayerEmail author
  • Werner Adler
  • Rolf Janka
  • Michael Uder
  • Frank Roemer
Scientific Article



To study the feasibility of magnetic resonance cinematography of the fingers (MRCF) with comparison of image quality of different protocols for depicting the finger anatomy during motion.

Materials and methods

MRCF was performed during a full flexion and extension movement in 14 healthy volunteers using a finger-gating device. Three real-time sequences (frame rates 17–59 images/min) and one proton density (PD) sequence (3 images/min) were acquired during incremental and continuous motion. Analyses were performed independently by three readers. Qualitative image analysis included Likert-scale grading from 0 (useless) to 5 (excellent) and specific visual analog scale (VAS) grading from 0 (insufficient) to 100 (excellent). Signal-to-noise calculation was performed. Overall percentage agreement and mean absolute disagreement were calculated.


Within the real-time sequences a high frame-rate true fast imaging with steady-state free precession (TRUFI) yielded the best image quality with Likert and overall VAS scores of 3.0 ± 0.2 and 60.4 ± 25.3, respectively. The best sequence regarding image quality was an incremental PD with mean values of 4.8 ± 0.2 and 91.2 ± 9.4, respectively. Overall percentage agreement and mean absolute disagreement were 47.9 and 0.7, respectively. No statistically significant SNR differences were found between continuous and incremental motion for the real-time protocols.


MRCF is feasible with appropriate image quality during continuous motion using a finger-gating device. Almost perfect image quality is achievable with incremental PD imaging, which represents a compromise for MRCF with the drawback of prolonged scanning time.


Cinematography MRI Finger Volar plate Pulley rupture 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

(M4V 1383 kb)

(M4V 5917 kb)

(M4V 9296 kb)

(M4V 2081 kb)

(M4V 1024 kb)

(M4V 2588 kb)

(M4V 2305 kb)


  1. 1.
    Shellock FG, Mink JH, Deutsch A, Pressman BD. Kinematic magnetic resonance imaging of the joints: techniques and clinical applications. Magn Reson Q. 1991;7(2):104–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quick HH, Ladd ME, Hoevel M, Bosk S, Debatin JF, Laub G, et al. Real-time MRI of joint movement with trueFISP. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;15(6):710–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shellock FG, Mink JH, Deutsch AL, Foo TK, Sullenberger P. Patellofemoral joint: identification of abnormalities with active-movement, “unloaded” versus “loaded” kinematic MR imaging techniques. Radiology. 1993;188(2):575–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muhle C, Brinkmann G, Brossmann J, Wesner F, Heller M. Kinematic MR imaging of the ankle—initial results with ultra-fast sequence imaging. Acta Radiol. 1997;38(5):885–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boutin RD, Buonocore MH, Immerman I, Ashwell Z, Sonico GJ, Szabo RM, et al. Real-time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during active wrist motion—initial observations. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e84004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nordmeyer-Massner JA, Pruessmann KP, Wyss M, Manoliu A, Hodler J, Andreisek G, et al. MR imaging of healthy knees in varying degrees of flexion using a stretchable coil array provides comparable image quality compared to a standard knee coil array. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(3):518–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tempelaere C, Pierrart J, Lefevre-Colau MM, Vuillemin V, Cuenod CA, Hansen U, et al. Dynamic three-dimensional shoulder MRI during active motion for investigation of rotator cuff diseases. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158563.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bayer T, Schweizer A, Muller-Gerbl M, Bongartz G. Proximal interphalangeal joint volar plate configuration in the crimp grip position. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(5):899–905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bayer T, Adler W, Schweizer A, Schoffl I, Uder M, Janka R. Evaluation of finger A3 pulley rupture in the crimp grip position-a magnetic resonance imaging cadaver study. Skelet Radiol. 2015;44(9):1279–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klauser A, Frauscher F, Bodner G, Halpern EJ, Schocke MF, Springer P, et al. Finger pulley injuries in extreme rock climbers: depiction with dynamic US. Radiology. 2002;222(3):755–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saito S, Suzuki Y. Biomechanics of the volar plate of the proximal interphalangeal joint: a dynamic ultrasonographic study. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(2):265–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barkhausen J, Ruehm SG, Goyen M, Buck T, Laub G, Debatin JF. MR evaluation of ventricular function: true fast imaging with steady-state precession versus fast low-angle shot cine MR imaging: feasibility study. Radiology. 2001;219(1):264–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abolmaali ND, Schmitt J, Schwarz W, Toll DE, Hinterwimmer S, Vogl TJ. Visualization of the articular disk of the temporomandibular joint in near-real-time MRI: feasibility study. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(10):1889–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morales H, Cornelius R. Imaging approach to Temporomandibular joint disorders. Clin Neuroradiol. 2016;26(1):5–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tomas X, Pomes J, Berenguer J, Quinto L, Nicolau C, Mercader JM, et al. MR imaging of temporomandibular joint dysfunction: a pictorial review. Radiographics. 2006;26(3):765–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tomas X, Pomes J, Berenguer J, Mercader JM, Pons F, Donoso L. Temporomandibular joint soft-tissue pathology, II: nondisc abnormalities. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2007;28(3):205–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lasalarie JC, Serfaty JM, Carre C, Messika-Zeitoun D, Jeannot C, Schouman-Claeys E, et al. Accuracy of contrast-enhanced cine-MR sequences in the assessment of left ventricular function: comparison with precontrast cine-MR sequences. Results of a bicentric study. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(11):2838–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grothues F, Boenigk H, Graessner J, Kanowski M, Klein HU. Balanced steady-state free precession vs segmented fast low-angle shot for the evaluation of ventricular volumes, mass, and function at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(2):392–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Bayer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Werner Adler
    • 2
  • Rolf Janka
    • 1
  • Michael Uder
    • 1
  • Frank Roemer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.IMBEUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations