Iterative Denoising Accelerated 3D FLAIR Sequence for Hydrops MR Imaging at 3T.
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
received:
13
02
2023
accepted:
27
06
2023
pmc-release:
01
09
2024
medline:
13
9
2023
pubmed:
4
8
2023
entrez:
3
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
3D FLAIR sequences have become the criterion standard for identifying endolymphatic hydrops, but scan time remains an important limitation to their widespread use. Our purpose was to evaluate the diagnostic performance and image quality of an accelerated 3D FLAIR sequence combined with an iterative denoising algorithm. This was a retrospective study performed on 30 patients with clinical suspicion of endolymphatic hydrops who underwent 3T MR imaging 4 hours after gadolinium injection using two 3D FLAIR sequences. The first (conventional FLAIR) was accelerated with a conventional turbo factor of 187. The second was accelerated with an increased turbo factor of 263, resulting in a 33% scan time reduction (5 minutes 36 seconds versus 8 minutes 15 seconds, respectively). A sequence was reconstructed in-line immediately after the accelerated 3D FLAIR acquisition from the same raw data with iterative denoising (accelerated-FLAIR iterative denoising). The signal intensity ratio image quality score and endolymphatic hydrops diagnosis were evaluated. The mean signal intensity ratio for symptomatic and asymptomatic ears of accelerated-FLAIR iterative denoising was significantly higher than the mean SNR of conventional FLAIR (29.5 versus 19 and 25.9 versus 16.3, The iterative denoising algorithm applied to an accelerated 3D FLAIR sequence for exploration of endolymphatic hydrops enabled significantly reducing the scan time without compromising image quality and diagnostic performance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
3D FLAIR sequences have become the criterion standard for identifying endolymphatic hydrops, but scan time remains an important limitation to their widespread use. Our purpose was to evaluate the diagnostic performance and image quality of an accelerated 3D FLAIR sequence combined with an iterative denoising algorithm.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This was a retrospective study performed on 30 patients with clinical suspicion of endolymphatic hydrops who underwent 3T MR imaging 4 hours after gadolinium injection using two 3D FLAIR sequences. The first (conventional FLAIR) was accelerated with a conventional turbo factor of 187. The second was accelerated with an increased turbo factor of 263, resulting in a 33% scan time reduction (5 minutes 36 seconds versus 8 minutes 15 seconds, respectively). A sequence was reconstructed in-line immediately after the accelerated 3D FLAIR acquisition from the same raw data with iterative denoising (accelerated-FLAIR iterative denoising). The signal intensity ratio image quality score and endolymphatic hydrops diagnosis were evaluated.
RESULTS
The mean signal intensity ratio for symptomatic and asymptomatic ears of accelerated-FLAIR iterative denoising was significantly higher than the mean SNR of conventional FLAIR (29.5 versus 19 and 25.9 versus 16.3,
CONCLUSIONS
The iterative denoising algorithm applied to an accelerated 3D FLAIR sequence for exploration of endolymphatic hydrops enabled significantly reducing the scan time without compromising image quality and diagnostic performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37536733
pii: ajnr.A7953
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7953
pmc: PMC10494947
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1064-1069Informations de copyright
© 2023 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Apr;39(4):745-67
pubmed: 24399498
Magn Reson Med. 2007 Dec;58(6):1182-95
pubmed: 17969013
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Oct;60(4):895-907
pubmed: 18816810
Clin Radiol. 2021 Jan;76(1):76.e1-76.e19
pubmed: 32892985
Jpn J Radiol. 2019 May;37(5):431-435
pubmed: 30863972
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018 May;99(5):271-277
pubmed: 29398574
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020 Oct;101(10):639-641
pubmed: 32958434
Invest Radiol. 2019 Feb;54(2):103-109
pubmed: 30281556
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2021 Sep 1;20(3):272-279
pubmed: 32830173
Laryngoscope. 2020 Jul;130(7):E444-E452
pubmed: 31742710
Invest Radiol. 2016 Jun;51(6):349-64
pubmed: 27003227
Otol Neurotol. 2017 Dec;38(10):e539-e544
pubmed: 29135874
Insights Imaging. 2018 Dec;9(6):1107-1115
pubmed: 30411279
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022 Jan;103(1):13-20
pubmed: 34663547
Eur Radiol. 2022 Oct;32(10):6900-6909
pubmed: 35759015
Acad Radiol. 2022 Feb 7;:
pubmed: 35144868
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Jun;47(6):1202-10
pubmed: 12111967
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2022 Jul 1;21(3):401-405
pubmed: 33896892
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Jul;36(1):55-72
pubmed: 22696125
Laryngoscope. 2007 Mar;117(3):415-20
pubmed: 17279053
J Vestib Res. 2021;31(4):261-268
pubmed: 33646188
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Apr;41(4):706-711
pubmed: 32193190
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022 Apr;103(4):225-229
pubmed: 34690107
Magn Reson Med. 1999 Nov;42(5):952-62
pubmed: 10542355
Jpn J Radiol. 2019 Jan;37(1):73-80
pubmed: 30498876
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Oct;37(10):1903-1908
pubmed: 27256854