European Radiology

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 1361–1366 | Cite as

Assessment of reduced field of view in diffusion tensor imaging of the lumbar nerve roots at 3 T

  • Jean-François Budzik
  • Sébastien Verclytte
  • Guillaume Lefebvre
  • Aurélien Monnet
  • Gerard Forzy
  • Anne Cotten
Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the value of reduced field of view (rFOV) imaging in diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and tractography of the lumbar nerve roots at 3 T from the perspective of future clinical trials.

Methods

DTI images of the lumbar nerves were obtained in eight healthy volunteers, with and without the rFOV technique. Non-coplanar excitation and refocusing pulses associated with outer volume suppression (OVS) were used to achieve rFOV imaging. Tractography was performed. A visual evaluation of image quality was made by two observers, both senior musculoskeletal radiologists. Fractional anisotropy (FA) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were measured in L5 and S1 roots.

Results

rFOV images of the L5 and S1 roots were assessed as being superior to full FOV (fFOV) images. Image quality was rated as good to excellent by both observers. Interobserver agreement was good. No significant difference was found in FA and ADC measurements of the L5 or S1 roots. On the contrary, only poor-quality images could be obtained with fFOV imaging as major artefacts were present.

Conclusion

The rFOV approach was essential to achieve high-quality DTI imaging of lumbar nerve roots on 3-T MRI.

Key Points

Diffusion tensor 3-T MR imaging of lumbar nerve roots creates severe artefacts.

A reduced field of view drastically reduces artefacts, thereby improving image quality.

Good-quality tractography images can even be obtained with rFOV imaging.

rFOV DTI is better than fFOV DTI for clinical studies.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion tensor imaging Peripheral nerves Echo planar imaging Lumbosacral region 

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADC

apparent diffusion coefficient

DTI

diffusion tensor imaging

EPI

echo planar imaging

FA

fractional anisotropy

fFOV

full field of view

rFOV

reduced field of view

OVS

outer volume suppression

ROI

region of interest

SNR

signal to noise ratio

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prof. Xavier Leclerc, PhD, from the Neuroradiology Department of the CHRU, who gave us access to the imaging platform of IFR 114– IMPRT, and Mr. David Chechin, PhD, Philips Healthcare, for his technical advice.

References

  1. 1.
    Budzik JF, Balbi V, Le Thuc V, Duhamel A, Assaker R, Cotten A (2011) Diffusion tensor imaging and fibre tracking in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Radiol 21:426–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Budzik JF, Le Thuc V, Demondion X, Morel M, Chechin D, Cotten A (2007) In vivo MR tractography of thigh muscles using diffusion imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol 17:3079–3085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khalil C, Budzik JF, Kermarrec E, Balbi V, Le Thuc V, Cotten A (2010) Tractography of peripheral nerves and skeletal muscles. Eur J Radiol 76:391–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hiltunen J, Kirveskari E, Numminen J, Lindfors N, Goransson H, Hari R (2012) Pre- and post-operative diffusion tensor imaging of the median nerve in carpal tunnel syndrome. Eur Radiol 22:1310–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khalil C, Hancart C, Le Thuc V, Chantelot C, Chechin D, Cotten A (2008) Diffusion tensor imaging and tractography of the median nerve in carpal tunnel syndrome: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 18:2283–2291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balbi V, Budzik JF, Duhamel A, Bera-Louville A, Le Thuc V, Cotten A (2011) Tractography of lumbar nerve roots: initial results. Eur Radiol 21:1153–1159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eguchi Y, Ohtori S, Orita S et al (2011) Quantitative evaluation and visualization of lumbar foraminal nerve root entrapment by using diffusion tensor imaging: preliminary results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32:1824–1829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barakat N, Mohamed FB, Hunter LN et al (2012) Diffusion tensor imaging of the normal pediatric spinal cord using an inner field of view echo-planar imaging sequence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:1127–1133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karampinos DC, Van AT, Olivero WC, Georgiadis JG, Sutton BP (2009) High-resolution diffusion tensor imaging of the human pons with a reduced field-of-view, multishot, variable-density, spiral acquisition at 3 T. Magn Reson Med 62:1007–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saritas EU, Cunningham CH, Lee JH, Han ET, Nishimura DG (2008) DWI of the spinal cord with reduced FOV single-shot EPI. Magn Reson Med 60:468–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilm BJ, Svensson J, Henning A, Pruessmann KP, Boesiger P, Kollias SS (2007) Reduced field-of-view MRI using outer volume suppression for spinal cord diffusion imaging. Magn Reson Med 57:625–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Price RR, Axel L, Morgan T et al (1990) Quality assurance methods and phantoms for magnetic resonance imaging: report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance Task Group No. 1. Med Phys 17:287–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zaharchuk G, Saritas EU, Andre JB et al (2011) Reduced field-of-view diffusion imaging of the human spinal cord: comparison with conventional single-shot echo-planar imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32:813–820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Finsterbusch J (2009) High-resolution diffusion tensor imaging with inner field-of-view EPI. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:987–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Santarelli X, Garbin G, Ukmar M, Longo R (2010) Dependence of the fractional anisotropy in cervical spine from the number of diffusion gradients, repeated acquisition and voxel size. Magn Reson Imaging 28:70–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Farrell JA, Landman BA, Jones CK et al (2007) Effects of signal-to-noise ratio on the accuracy and reproducibility of diffusion tensor imaging-derived fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, and principal eigenvector measurements at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:756–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wardlaw JM, Brindle W, Casado AM et al (2012) A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8
  18. 18.
    Wattjes MP, Barkhof F (2012) Diagnostic relevance of high field MRI in clinical neuroradiology: the advantages and challenges of driving a sports car. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2552-9

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-François Budzik
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • 9
  • Sébastien Verclytte
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
    • 9
  • Guillaume Lefebvre
    • 3
    • 6
    • 10
  • Aurélien Monnet
    • 7
    • 11
  • Gerard Forzy
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
    • 8
    • 12
  • Anne Cotten
    • 3
    • 4
    • 6
    • 10
  1. 1.Groupe Hospitalier de l’Institut Catholique de Lille, Imagerie MédicaleLilleFrance
  2. 2.Faculté Libre de MédecineLilleFrance
  3. 3.Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, Imagerie Musculo-squelettiqueLilleFrance
  4. 4.EA 4490 PMOI (Physiopathologie des Maladies Osseuses Inflammatoires) IFR 114 PRESUniversité Lille Nord de FranceLilleFrance
  5. 5.Université Catholique de LilleLilleFrance
  6. 6.Université Nord de FranceLilleFrance
  7. 7.Service de NeuroradiologieCHU de LilleLilleFrance
  8. 8.Laboratoire de biologie, département de biostatistiquesGroupe hospitalier de l’Institut Catholique de LilleLilleFrance
  9. 9.Service d’Imagerie MédicaleHôpital St Vincent de PaulLille CedexFrance
  10. 10.Service de Radiologie et Imagerie MusculosquelettiqueCentre de Consultations et d’Imagerie de l’Appareil LocomoteurLille CedexFrance
  11. 11.Service de NeuroradiologieHôpital Roger SalengroLille CedexFrance
  12. 12.Laboratoire de Biologie, département de biostatistiquesHôpital St PhilibertLommeFrance

Personalised recommendations