Skip to content
2000
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4056
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6603

Abstract

Introduction

The application of compressed sensing (CS) has enabled breath-hold 3D-MRCP with a shorter acquisition time in clinical practice.

Aim

To compare the image quality of breath-hold (BH) and respiratory-triggered (RT) 3D-MRCP with or without CS application in the same study population.

Methods

In this retrospective study, from February to July 2020, a total of 98 consecutive patients underwent four different acquisition types of 3D-MRCP.; 1) BH MRCP with the generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) (BH-GRAPPA), 2) RT-GRAPPA-MRCP, 3) RT-CS-MRCP and 4) BH-CS-MRCP. Relative contrast of common bile duct, 5-scale visibility score of biliary pancreatic ducts, 3-scale artifact score and 5-scale overall image quality score were evaluated by two abdominal radiologists.

Results

Relative contrast value was significantly higher in BH-CS or RT-CS than in RT-GRAPPA (0.90 ± 0.057 and 0.89 ± 0.079, respectively, . 0.82 ± 0.071, < 0.01) or BH-GRAPPA (. 0.77 ± 0.080, < 0.01). The area affected by artifact was significantly lower in BH-CS among 4 MRCPs ( < 0.01). Overall image quality score in BH-CS was significantly higher than BH-GRAPPA (3.40 . 2.71, < 0.01). There were no significant differences between RT-GRAPPA and BH-CS (. 3.13, = 0.67) in overall image quality.

Conclusion

In this study, our results revealed BH-CS had higher relative contrast and comparable or superior image quality among four MRCP sequences.

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Open. This is an open access article published under CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/1573405620666230328093206
2024-01-01
2024-11-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cmir/20/1/CMIM-20-e280323215033.html?itemId=/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/1573405620666230328093206&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. GriffinN. Charles-EdwardsG. GrantL.A. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: The ABC of MRCP.Insights Imaging201231112110.1007/s13244‑011‑0129‑922695995
    [Google Scholar]
  2. TaylorA.C.F. LittleA.F. HennessyO.F. BantingS.W. SmithP.J. DesmondP.V. Prospective assessment of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for noninvasive imaging of the biliary tree.Gastrointest. Endosc.2002551172210.1067/mge.2002.12032411756908
    [Google Scholar]
  3. VidalB.P.C. Lahan-MartinsD. PenachimT.J. RodsteinM.A.M. CardiaP.P. PrandoA. MR cholangiopancreatography: What every radiology resident must know.Radiographics20204051263126410.1148/rg.202020003032870770
    [Google Scholar]
  4. SeoN. ParkM.S. HanK. KimD. KingK.F. ChoiJ.Y. KimH. KimH.J. LeeM. BaeH. KimM.J. Feasibility of 3D navigator-triggered magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with combined parallel imaging and compressed sensing reconstruction at 3T.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging20174651289129710.1002/jmri.2567228295827
    [Google Scholar]
  5. LeeJ.H. LeeS.S. KimJ.Y. KimI.S. ByunJ.H. ParkS.H. LeeM.G. Parallel imaging improves the image quality and duct visibility of breathhold two-dimensional thick-slab MR cholangiopancreatography.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging201439226927510.1002/jmri.2415523596083
    [Google Scholar]
  6. YehB.M. LiuP.S. SotoJ.A. CorveraC.A. HussainH.K. MR imaging and CT of the biliary tract.Radiographics20092961669168810.1148/rg.29609551419959515
    [Google Scholar]
  7. YoonJ.H. LeeS.M. KangH.J. WeilandE. RaithelE. SonY. KieferB. LeeJ.M. Clinical feasibility of 3-Dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using compressed sensing.Invest. Radiol.2017521061261910.1097/RLI.000000000000038028448309
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BatesD.D.B. LeBedisC.A. SotoJ.A. GuptaA. Use of magnetic resonance in pancreaticobiliary emergencies.Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. N. Am.201624243344810.1016/j.mric.2015.11.01027150328
    [Google Scholar]
  9. FengL. BenkertT. BlockK.T. SodicksonD.K. OtazoR. ChandaranaH. Compressed sensing for body MRI.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging201745496698710.1002/jmri.2554727981664
    [Google Scholar]
  10. JaspanO.N. FleysherR. LiptonM.L. Compressed sensing MRI: A review of the clinical literature.Br. J. Radiol.20158810562015048710.1259/bjr.2015048726402216
    [Google Scholar]
  11. YoonJ.H. NickelM.D. PeetersJ.M. LeeJ.M. Rapid imaging: Recent advances in abdominal mri for reducing acquisition time and its clinical applications.Korean J. Radiol.201920121597161510.3348/kjr.2018.093131854148
    [Google Scholar]
  12. YeJ.C. Compressed sensing MRI: A review from signal processing perspective.BMC Biomed. Eng.201911810.1186/s42490‑019‑0006‑z32903346
    [Google Scholar]
  13. SongJ.S. KimS.H. KuehnB. PaekM.Y. Optimized breath-hold compressed-sensing 3D MR cholangiopancreatography at 3T: Image quality analysis and clinical feasibility assessment.Diagnostics202010637610.3390/diagnostics1006037632517113
    [Google Scholar]
  14. KwonH. ReidS. KimD. LeeS. ChoJ. OhJ. Diagnosing common bile duct obstruction: Comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance of three-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with and without compressed sensing.Abdom. Radiol.20184392255226110.1007/s00261‑017‑1451‑629302736
    [Google Scholar]
  15. KromreyM.L. FunayamaS. TamadaD. IchikawaS. ShimizuT. OnishiH. MotosugiU. Clinical evaluation of respiratory-triggered 3D MRCP with navigator echoes compared to breath-hold acquisition using compressed sensing and/or parallel imaging.Magn. Reson. Med. Sci.202019431832310.2463/mrms.mp‑2019‑012231645536
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ChandaranaH. DoshiA.M. ShanbhogueA. BabbJ.S. BrunoM.T. ZhaoT. RaithelE. ZengeM.O. LiG. OtazoR. Three-dimensional MR cholangiopancreatography in a breath hold with sparsity-based reconstruction of highly undersampled data.Radiology2016280258559410.1148/radiol.201615193526982678
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MoritaS. UenoE. SuzukiK. MachidaH. FujimuraM. KojimaS. HirataM. OhnishiT. ImuraC. Navigator-triggered prospective acquisition correction (PACE) technique vs. conventional respiratory-triggered technique for free-breathing 3D MRCP: An initial prospective comparative study using healthy volunteers.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging200828367367710.1002/jmri.2148518777550
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HosseinzadehK. FurlanA. AlmusaO. 2D thick-slab MR cholangiopancreatography: Does parallel imaging with sensitivity encoding improve image quality and duct visualization?AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.20081906W327W33410.2214/AJR.07.285418492874
    [Google Scholar]
  19. NagataS. GoshimaS. NodaY. KawaiN. KajitaK. KawadaH. TanahashiY. MatsuoM. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using optimized integrated combination with parallel imaging and compressed sensing technique.Abdom. Radiol. (N.Y.)20194451766177210.1007/s00261‑018‑01886‑030659308
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WortersP.W. SungK. StevensK.J. KochK.M. HargreavesB.A. Compressed-Sensing multispectral imaging of the postoperative spine.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging201337124324810.1002/jmri.2375022791572
    [Google Scholar]
  21. TokoroH. YamadaA. SuzukiT. KitoY. AdachiY. HayashiharaH. NickelM.D. MaruyamaK. FujinagaY. Usefulness of breath-hold compressed sensing accelerated three-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) added to respiratory-gating conventional MRCP.Eur. J. Radiol.202012210876510.1016/j.ejrad.2019.10876531830630
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/1573405620666230328093206
Loading
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/1573405620666230328093206
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test