Pediatric Musculoskeletal Imaging at 3 Tesla

ABSTRACT

High signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the ability to acquire high-resolution thin section images are major advantages of 3 Tesla (T) that benefit musculoskeletal (MSK) imaging. Use of 3 T for pediatric MSK imaging is still in its early phase, and actual clinical benefits are not yet clear. However, initial reports in adult and our experience suggest that 3 T is better in imaging cartilage and small joints. It provides good quality images even for small field of views, which is advantageous in children. It shows cartilage, ligaments, and nerves better. After optimization, overall examination time is shorter at 3 T, which has the potential to reduce the need for sedation and increase throughput. 3-T imaging has the potential to improve small lesion evaluation and tumor staging, and it can be used for whole-body screening for metastasis. We discuss the technical differences, artifacts, and safety issues of 3 T, followed by our initial clinical experience with illustrative examples in pediatric MSK imaging at 3 T.

KEYWORDS

Musculoskeletal imaging - children - 3 Tesla

REFERENCES

• 1 Kuhl C K, Träber F, Schild H H. Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. Part I. Technical considerations and clinical applications.  Radiology. 2008;  246(3) 675-696
• 2 Kuhl C K, Träber F, Gieseke J et al.. Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. Part II. Technical considerations and clinical applications.  Radiology. 2008;  247(1) 16-35
• 3 Lee V S, Hecht E M, Taouli B, Chen Q, Prince K, Oesingmann N. Body and cardiovascular MR imaging at 3.0 T.  Radiology. 2007;  244(3) 692-705
• 4 Machann J, Schlemmer H P, Schick F. Technical challenges and opportunities of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 3T.  Phys Med. 2008;  24(2) 63-70
• 5 Chang K J, Kamel I R, Macura K J, Bluemke D A. 3.0-T MR imaging of the abdomen: comparison with 1.5 T.  Radiographics. 2008;  28(7) 1983-1998
• 6 Kuo R, Panchal M, Tanenbaum L, Crues III J V. 3.0 Tesla imaging of the musculoskeletal system.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;  25(2) 245-261
• 7 Saupe N, Prüssmann K P, Luechinger R, Bösiger P, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR imaging of the wrist: comparison between 1.5- and 3-T MR imaging—preliminary experience.  Radiology. 2005;  234(1) 256-264
• 8 Masi J N, Sell C A, Phan C et al.. Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 vs that at 1.5T: preliminary results in a porcine model.  Radiology. 2005;  236 140-150
• 9 Eckstein F, Charles H C, Buck R J et al.. Accuracy and precision of quantitative assessment of cartilage morphology by magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0T.  Arthritis Rheum. 2005;  52(10) 3132-3136
• 10 Kijowski R, Blankenbaker D G, Davis K W, Shinki K, Kaplan L D, De Smet A A. Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint.  Radiology. 2009;  250(3) 839-848
• 11 Gold G E, Suh B, Sawyer-Glover A, Beaulieu C. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  183(5) 1479-1486
• 12 Anderson M L, Skinner J A, Felmlee J P, Berger R A, Amrami K K. Diagnostic comparison of 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla preoperative MRI of the wrist in patients with ulnar-sided wrist pain.  J Hand Surg [Am]. 2008;  33(7) 1153-1159
• 13 Schmidt G P, Wintersperger B, Graser A, Baur-Melnyk A, Reiser M F, Schoenberg S O. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance imaging applications at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: a comparative study.  Invest Radiol. 2007;  42(6) 449-459
• 14 Fenchel M, Doering J, Seeger A et al.. Ultrafast whole-body MR angiography with two-dimensional parallel imaging at 3.0 T: feasibility study.  Radiology. 2009;  250(1) 254-263