Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Image-guided spinal injection procedures in open high-field MRI with vertical field orientation: feasibility and technical features

  • Interventional
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

We prospectively evaluated the feasibility and technical features of MR-guided lumbosacral injection procedures in open high-field MRI at 1.0 T.

Methods

In a CuSO4·5H2O phantom and five human cadaveric spines, fluoroscopy sequences (proton-density-weighted turbo spin-echo (PDw TSE), T1w TSE, T2w TSE; balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP), T1w gradient echo (GE), T2w GE) were evaluated using two MRI-compatible 20-G Chiba-type needles. Artefacts were analysed by varying needle orientation to B0, frequency-encoding direction and slice orientation. Image quality was described using the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Subsequently, a total of 183 MR-guided nerve root (107), facet (53) and sacroiliac joint (23) injections were performed in 53 patients.

Results

In vitro, PDw TSE sequence yielded the best needle–tissue contrasts (CNR = 45, 18, 15, 9, and 8 for needle vs. fat, muscle, root, bone and sclerosis, respectively) and optimal artefact sizes (width and tip shift less than 5 mm). In vivo, PDw TSE sequence was sufficient in all cases. The acquisition time of 2 s facilitated near-real-time MRI guidance. Drug delivery was technically successful in 100% (107/107), 87% (46/53) and 87% (20/23) of nerve root, facet and sacroiliac joint injections, respectively. No major complications occurred. The mean procedure time was 29 min (range 19–67 min).

Conclusion

MR-guided spinal injections in open high-field MRI are feasible and accurate using fast TSE sequence designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vahlensieck M, Bruderhofer AF, Waldecker B (2005) CT-guided steroid injection into disc herniation: a causative therapy for lower back pain due to disc herniation. Rofo 177:72–76

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Derby R, Kine G, Saal JA et al (1992) Response to steroid and duration of radicular pain as predictors of surgical outcome. Spine 17:S176–183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Meleka S, Patra A, Minkoff E et al (2005) Value of CT fluoroscopy for lumbar facet blocks. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:1001–1003

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bogduk N (1997) International Spinal Injection Society guidelines for the performance of spinal injection procedures. Part 1: zygapophysial joint blocks. Clin J Pain 13:285–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pfirrmann CW, Oberholzer PA, Zanetti M et al (2001) Selective nerve root blocks for the treatment of sciatica: evaluation of injection site and effectiveness-a study with patients and cadavers. Radiology 221:704–711

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Adam G, Bucker A, Nolte-Ernsting C et al (1999) Interventional MR imaging: percutaneous abdominal and skeletal biopsies and drainages of the abdomen. Eur Radiol 9:1471–1478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sequeiros RB, Klemola R, Ojala R et al (2003) Percutaneous MR-guided discography in a low-field system using optical instrument tracking: a feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 17:214–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ishiwata Y, Takada H, Gondo G et al (2007) Magnetic resonance-guided percutaneous laser disk decompression for lumbar disk herniation—relationship between clinical results and location of needle tip. Surg Neurol 68:159–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hilfiker PR, Weishaupt D, Schmid M et al (1999) Real-time MR-guided joint puncture and arthrography: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 9:201–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Konig CW, Schott UG, Pereira PL et al (2002) MR-guided lumbar sympathicolysis. Eur Radiol 12:1388–1393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schulz T, Puccini S, Schneider JP et al (2004) Interventional and intraoperative MR: review and update of techniques and clinical experience. Eur Radiol 14:2212–2227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kariniemi J, Sequeiros RB, Ojala R et al (2009) MRI-guided percutaneous nephrostomy: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 19:1296–1301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fritz J, Clasen S, Boss A et al (2008) Real-time MR fluoroscopy-navigated lumbar facet joint injections: feasibility and technical properties. Eur Radiol 18:1513–1518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ojala R, Klemola R, Karppinen J et al (2001) Sacro-iliac joint arthrography in low back pain: feasibility of MRI guidance. Eur J Radiol 40:236–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ojala R, Vahala E, Karppinen J et al (2000) Nerve root infiltration of the first sacral root with MRI guidance. J Magn Reson Imaging 12:556–561

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sequeiros RB, Ojala RO, Klemola R et al (2002) MRI-guided periradicular nerve root infiltration therapy in low-field (0.23-T) MRI system using optical instrument tracking. Eur Radiol 12:1331–1337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fritz J, Henes JC, Thomas C et al (2008) Diagnostic and interventional MRI of the sacroiliac joints using a 1.5-T open-bore magnet: a one-stop-shopping approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1717–1724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fritz J, Thomas C, Clasen S et al (2009) Freehand real-time MRI-guided lumbar spinal injection procedures at 1.5 T: feasibility, accuracy, and safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:W161–W167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Streitparth F, Gebauer B, Melcher I et al (2009) MR-guided laser ablation of osteoid osteoma in an open high-field system (1.0 T). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 32:320–325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Frahm C, Gehl HB, Melchert UH et al (1996) Visualization of magnetic resonance-compatible needles at 1.5 and 0.2 Tesla. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 19:335–340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. D’Aprile P, Tarantino A, Jinkins JR et al (2007) The value of fat saturation sequences and contrast medium administration in MRI of degenerative disease of the posterior/perispinal elements of the lumbosacral spine. Eur Radiol 17:523–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lewin JS, Duerk JL, Jain VR et al (1996) Needle localization in MR-guided biopsy and aspiration: effects of field strength, sequence design, and magnetic field orientation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:1337–1345

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Muller-Bierl B, Graf H, Steidle G et al (2005) Compensation of magnetic field distortions from paramagnetic instruments by added diamagnetic material: measurements and numerical simulations. Med Phys 32:76–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Farahani K, Sinha U, Sinha S et al (1990) Effect of field strength on susceptibility artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Comput Med Imaging Graph 14:409–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ludeke KM, Roschmann P, Tischler R (1985) Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 3:329–343

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Charité, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    F. Streitparth, T. Walter, U. Wonneberger, M. Wagner, K. G. Hermann, B. Hamm & U. Teichgräber

  2. Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Augustenburgerplatz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    S. Chopra

  3. Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Augustenburgerplatz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    F. Wichlas

Authors
  1. F. Streitparth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Walter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. U. Wonneberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Chopra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. Wichlas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. K. G. Hermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. B. Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. U. Teichgräber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Streitparth.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

PRT Movie (MOV 317 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Streitparth, F., Walter, T., Wonneberger, U. et al. Image-guided spinal injection procedures in open high-field MRI with vertical field orientation: feasibility and technical features. Eur Radiol 20, 395–403 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1567-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1567-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation