Clinical evaluation of CAIPIRINHA: Comparison against a GRAPPA standard

38Citations
Citations of this article
74Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate image quality when using a CAIPIRINHA sampling pattern in comparison to a standard GRAPPA sampling pattern in patients undergoing a routine three-dimensional (3D) breathheld liver exam. CAIPIRINHA uses an optimized phase encoding sampling strategy to alter aliasing artifacts in 3D acquisitions to improve parallel imaging reconstruction. Materials and Methods Twenty patient volunteers were scanned using a 3D VIBE acquisition with an acceleration factor of four using a CAIPIRINHA and standard GRAPPA sampling pattern. CAIPIRINHA and GRAPPA images were evaluated by three radiologists in a two alternative forced choice test, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed. Results The CAIPIRINHA sampling pattern was preferred in an average of 68% of the comparisons, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test showed a significant improvement in CAIPIRINHA images (P = 0.014). This analysis indicates that in the given sample set, CAIPIRINHA preference over the GRAPPA standard was statistically significant. Conclusion This work shows that for an acceleration factor of four, a CAIPIRINHA accelerated VIBE acquisition provides significantly improved image quality in comparison to the current GRAPPA standard. This allows a further reduction in imaging time for similar spatial resolutions, which can reduce long breathhold requirements in abdominal imaging, and may be particularly helpful in patients who cannot provide requisite breathholds with current protocols. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;39:189-194. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wright, K. L., Harrell, M. W., Jesberger, J. A., Landeras, L., Nakamoto, D. A., Thomas, S., … Gulani, V. (2014). Clinical evaluation of CAIPIRINHA: Comparison against a GRAPPA standard. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 39(1), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24105

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