A comparative quantitative analysis of the IDEAL (iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation) and the CHESS (chemical shift selection suppression) techniques in 3.0 T L-spine MRI
- 86 Downloads
This study was conducted on 20 patients who had undergone pedicle screw fixation between March and December 2010 to quantitatively compare a conventional fat suppression technique, CHESS (chemical shift selection suppression), and a new technique, IDEAL (iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least squares estimation). The general efficacy and usefulness of the IDEAL technique was also evaluated. Fat-suppressed transverse-relaxation-weighed images and longitudinal-relaxation-weighted images were obtained before and after contrast injection by using these two techniques with a 1.5T MR (magnetic resonance) scanner. The obtained images were analyzed for image distortion, susceptibility artifacts and homogenous fat removal in the target region. The results showed that the image distortion due to the susceptibility artifacts caused by implanted metal was lower in the images obtained using the IDEAL technique compared to those obtained using the CHESS technique. The results of a qualitative analysis also showed that compared to the CHESS technique, fewer susceptibility artifacts and more homogenous fat removal were found in the images obtained using the IDEAL technique in a comparative image evaluation of the axial plane images before and after contrast injection. In summary, compared to the CHESS technique, the IDEAL technique showed a lower occurrence of susceptibility artifacts caused by metal and lower image distortion. In addition, more homogenous fat removal was shown in the IDEAL technique.
KeywordsPedicle screw fixation CHESS technique IDEAL technique Fat suppression
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- L. J. Melton, S. H. Kan, M. A. Frye, H. W. Wahner, W. M. O’Fallon and B. L. Riggs, Am. J. Epidemiol. 129, 1000 (1989).Google Scholar
- P. R. Cooper, Clin. Neurosurg. 34, 650 (1988).Google Scholar
- M. R. Mikles, R. P. Stchur and G. P. Graziano, J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 12, 424 (2004).Google Scholar
- W. T. Dixon, Radiology 153, 189 (1984).Google Scholar
- A. V. Barger, D. R. DeLone, M. A. Bernstein and K. M. Welker, Am. J. Neurorad. 27, 1292 (2006).Google Scholar
- W. Teresa, H. N. Listerud and Y. Rbert, Radiology 181, 41 (1991).Google Scholar
- W. T. Dixon. Radiology 153, 189 (1984).Google Scholar
- D. Hernando, J. P. Haldar, B. P. Sutton, J. Ma, P. Kellman and Z. P. Liang. Magn Reson Med, 59, 571 (2008).Google Scholar