Blade in sagittal T2-weighted MR imaging of the cervical spine

32Citations
Citations of this article
77Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Image quality and diagnostic reliability of T2-weighted MR images of the cervical spine are often impaired by several kinds of artifacts, even in cooperative patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate if BLADE sequences might solve these problems in a routine patient collective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TSE and BLADE sequences were compared in 60 patients for T2- weighted sagittal imaging of the cervical spine. Image sharpness, motion artifacts, truncation artifacts, metal artifacts, CSF flow phenomena, contrast of anatomic structures (vertebral body/disk, spinal cord/CSF), and diagnostic reliability of spinal cord depiction were evaluated by 2 independent readers. Another 2 readers selected the sequence they would prefer for diagnostic purposes. Statistical evaluations were performed by using the Wilcoxon and the χ2 test; differences with P < .05 were regarded as statistically significant. RESULTS: BLADE was significantly superior to TSE regarding image sharpness, image contrast, diagnostic reliability of spinal cord depiction, motion artifacts, CSF flow phenomena, and truncation artifacts; for metal artifacts no significant improvements were found. In 50 of 60 patients, BLADE was preferred for diagnostic purposes, and TSE was favored in 3 patients. The number of examinations that were nondiagnostic due to impaired spinal cord depiction was reduced from 12 in TSE to 3 in BLADE, and nondiagnostic examinations due to overall motion artifacts were reduced from 2 to 1. CONCLUSIONS: Using the BLADE sequence for sagittal T2-weighted imaging of the cervical spine proved to be advantageous to reduce various kinds of artifacts.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fellner, C., Menzel, C., Fellner, F. A., Ginthoer, C., Zorger, N., Schreyer, A., … Finkenzeller, T. (2010). Blade in sagittal T2-weighted MR imaging of the cervical spine. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 31(4), 674–681. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1894

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free