Brainstem anatomy with 7-T MRI: in vivo assessment and ex vivo comparison.
Brain stem
Grey matter
Magnetic resonance imaging
Staining and labelling
White matter
Journal
European radiology experimental
ISSN: 2509-9280
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol Exp
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Nov 2023
16 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
22
06
2023
accepted:
01
09
2023
medline:
17
11
2023
pubmed:
16
11
2023
entrez:
15
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The brainstem contains grey matter nuclei and white matter tracts to be identified in clinical practice. The small size and the low contrast among them make their in vivo visualisation challenging using conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences at high magnetic field strengths. Combining higher spatial resolution, signal- and contrast-to-noise ratio and sensitivity to magnetic susceptibility (χ), susceptibility-weighted 7-T imaging could improve the assessment of brainstem anatomy. We acquired high-resolution 7-T MRI of the brainstem in a 46-year-old female healthy volunteer (using a three-dimensional multi-echo gradient-recalled-echo sequence; spatial resolution 0.3 × 0.3 × 1.2 mm This in vivo imaging revealed structures usually evaluated through light microscopy, such as the accessory olivary nuclei, oculomotor nucleus and the medial longitudinal fasciculus. Some fibre tracts, such as the medial lemniscus, were visible for most of their course. Overall, in in vivo acquisitions, χ and frequency maps performed better than T2*-weighted imaging and allowed for the evaluation of a greater number of anatomical structures. All the structures identified in vivo were confirmed by the ex vivo imaging and histology. The use of multi-echo GRE sequences at 7 T allowed the visualisation of brainstem structures that are not visible in detail at conventional magnetic field and opens new perspectives in the diagnostic and therapeutical approach to brain disorders. In vivo MR imaging at UHF provides detailed anatomy of CNS substructures comparable to that obtained with histology. Anatomical details are fundamentals for diagnostic purposes but also to plan a direct targeting for a minimally invasive brain stimulation or ablation. • The in vivo brainstem anatomy was explored with ultrahigh field MRI (7 T). • In vivo T2*-weighted magnitude, χ, and frequency images revealed many brainstem structures. • Ex vivo imaging and histology confirmed all the structures identified in vivo. • χ and frequency imaging revealed more brainstem structures than magnitude imaging.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The brainstem contains grey matter nuclei and white matter tracts to be identified in clinical practice. The small size and the low contrast among them make their in vivo visualisation challenging using conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences at high magnetic field strengths. Combining higher spatial resolution, signal- and contrast-to-noise ratio and sensitivity to magnetic susceptibility (χ), susceptibility-weighted 7-T imaging could improve the assessment of brainstem anatomy.
METHODS
METHODS
We acquired high-resolution 7-T MRI of the brainstem in a 46-year-old female healthy volunteer (using a three-dimensional multi-echo gradient-recalled-echo sequence; spatial resolution 0.3 × 0.3 × 1.2 mm
RESULTS
RESULTS
This in vivo imaging revealed structures usually evaluated through light microscopy, such as the accessory olivary nuclei, oculomotor nucleus and the medial longitudinal fasciculus. Some fibre tracts, such as the medial lemniscus, were visible for most of their course. Overall, in in vivo acquisitions, χ and frequency maps performed better than T2*-weighted imaging and allowed for the evaluation of a greater number of anatomical structures. All the structures identified in vivo were confirmed by the ex vivo imaging and histology.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The use of multi-echo GRE sequences at 7 T allowed the visualisation of brainstem structures that are not visible in detail at conventional magnetic field and opens new perspectives in the diagnostic and therapeutical approach to brain disorders.
RELEVANCE STATEMENT
CONCLUSIONS
In vivo MR imaging at UHF provides detailed anatomy of CNS substructures comparable to that obtained with histology. Anatomical details are fundamentals for diagnostic purposes but also to plan a direct targeting for a minimally invasive brain stimulation or ablation.
KEY POINTS
CONCLUSIONS
• The in vivo brainstem anatomy was explored with ultrahigh field MRI (7 T). • In vivo T2*-weighted magnitude, χ, and frequency images revealed many brainstem structures. • Ex vivo imaging and histology confirmed all the structures identified in vivo. • χ and frequency imaging revealed more brainstem structures than magnitude imaging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37968363
doi: 10.1186/s41747-023-00389-y
pii: 10.1186/s41747-023-00389-y
pmc: PMC10651583
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
71Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Neuroimage. 2012 Aug 15;62(2):1311-5
pubmed: 22245644
Front Neuroanat. 2021 Apr 16;15:663399
pubmed: 33935659
Acta Anat (Basel). 1992;144(3):235-57
pubmed: 1529678
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 19;12(4):e0176130
pubmed: 28423027
Case Rep Otolaryngol. 2013;2013:934386
pubmed: 23662232
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Jan;30(1):19-30
pubmed: 19039041
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Nov 6;109(45):18559-64
pubmed: 23091011
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Oct 29;7:710
pubmed: 24194710
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Mar;40(3):401-407
pubmed: 30705073
J Neurosurg. 2016 May;124(5):1377-95
pubmed: 26517774
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Feb;77(2):774-778
pubmed: 26888162
Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Sep 30;10(10):
pubmed: 36292362
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Apr;32(4):688-94
pubmed: 21183619
Neuroimage Clin. 2016 May 02;12:965-969
pubmed: 27995062
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Mar;30(3):569-74
pubmed: 19112064
Clin Anat. 2020 Sep;33(6):950-959
pubmed: 32427400
Trends Neurosci. 1990 Dec;13(12):474-9
pubmed: 1703677
Neuroimage. 2012 Jan 2;59(1):297-305
pubmed: 21784162
Radiology. 2014 Jun;271(3):831-8
pubmed: 24601752
Neuroimage. 2011 Apr 15;55(4):1645-56
pubmed: 21224002
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Jan;31(1):185-91
pubmed: 20027586
Neurology. 2013 Aug 6;81(6):534-40
pubmed: 23843466
J Neurol Sci. 2014 Jul 15;342(1-2):162-6
pubmed: 24857760
Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Jan;33(1):1-25
pubmed: 25267705
Anat Sci Educ. 2012 Sep-Oct;5(5):264-72
pubmed: 22573575
Neuroimage. 2021 Feb 1;226:117573
pubmed: 33221451
Ann Anat. 2021 Nov;238:151761
pubmed: 34139280
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2014 Aug;73(8):780-8
pubmed: 25007244
N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 31;355(9):896-908
pubmed: 16943402
Front Neuroanat. 2018 Dec 05;12:110
pubmed: 30568580
Neuroimage. 2011 Feb 14;54(4):2789-807
pubmed: 21040794
Neuroradiology. 2014 Mar;56(3):177-86
pubmed: 24357075
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37328
pubmed: 22615980
NMR Biomed. 2017 Apr;30(4):
pubmed: 27240118
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Jun;37(6):1058-65
pubmed: 26869471
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2011 Jun;294(6):1035-44
pubmed: 21542138
Front Neurosci. 2022 Aug 09;16:945574
pubmed: 36017181
Front Neurol. 2021 Jul 16;12:675123
pubmed: 34335445
Opt Lett. 2003 Jul 15;28(14):1194-6
pubmed: 12885018
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004 Sep;25(8):1325-30
pubmed: 15466326
Clin Anat. 2017 Jan;30(1):2-5
pubmed: 27646460
Pain. 2017 Aug;158(8):1461-1472
pubmed: 28541256
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 May;41(5):777-784
pubmed: 32354712