The Value of 3 Tesla Field Strength for Musculoskeletal Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- PMID: 34190717
- DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000801
The Value of 3 Tesla Field Strength for Musculoskeletal Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Abstract
Musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a careful negotiation between spatial, temporal, and contrast resolution, which builds the foundation for diagnostic performance and value. Many aspects of musculoskeletal MRI can improve the image quality and increase the acquisition speed; however, 3.0-T field strength has the highest impact within the current diagnostic range. In addition to the favorable attributes of 3.0-T field strength translating into high temporal, spatial, and contrast resolution, many 3.0-T MRI systems yield additional gains through high-performance gradients systems and radiofrequency pulse transmission technology, advanced multichannel receiver technology, and high-end surface coils. Compared with 1.5 T, 3.0-T MRI systems yield approximately 2-fold higher signal-to-noise ratios, enabling 4 times faster data acquisition or double the matrix size. Clinically, 3.0-T field strength translates into markedly higher scan efficiency, better image quality, more accurate visualization of small anatomic structures and abnormalities, and the ability to offer high-end applications, such as quantitative MRI and magnetic resonance neurography. Challenges of 3.0-T MRI include higher magnetic susceptibility, chemical shift, dielectric effects, and higher radiofrequency energy deposition, which can be managed successfully. The higher total cost of ownership of 3.0-T MRI systems can be offset by shorter musculoskeletal MRI examinations, higher-quality examinations, and utilization of advanced MRI techniques, which then can achieve higher gains and value than lower field systems. We provide a practice-focused review of the value of 3.0-T field strength for musculoskeletal MRI, practical solutions to challenges, and illustrations of a wide spectrum of gainful clinical applications.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: J.F. received institutional research support from Siemens AG, BTG International, Zimmer Biomet, DePuy Synthes, QED, and SyntheticMR; is a scientific advisor for Siemens AG, SyntheticMR, GE Healthcare, QED, BTG International, ImageBiopsy Lab, Boston Scientific, and Mirata Pharmaceuticals; and has shared patents with Siemens Healthcare and Johns Hopkins University. I.K. has nothing to disclose.
References
-
- Ahlawat S, Fritz J, Morris CD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers in musculoskeletal soft tissue tumors: review of conventional features and focus on nonmorphologic imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging . 2019;50:11–27.
-
- Fritz B, Parkar AP, Cerezal L, et al. Sports imaging of team handball injuries. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol . 2020;24:227–245.
-
- Sutter R, Stoel BC, Buck FM, et al. Internal derangements of joints-past, present, and future. Invest Radiol . 2015;50:601–614.
-
- Coris EE, Zwygart K, Fletcher M, et al. Imaging in sports medicine: an overview. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev . 2009;17:2–12.
-
- Hynes JP, Walsh J, Farrell TP, et al. Role of musculoskeletal radiology in modern sports medicine. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol . 2018;22:582–591.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical