Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2021.15.7.983

Evaluation of Image Quality for 2D TSE(RT) and 3D GRASE in MRCP Study: Fast MRCP Method  

Goo, Eun-Hoe (Department of Radiological Science, Cheongju University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology / v.15, no.7, 2021 , pp. 983-989 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, we intend to evaluate image quality and provide to clinical basic data by applying to 2D TSE (RT) and 3D GRASE (BH) techniques using Fast MRCP testing methods for application to patients in poor patient condition. Data were analyzed for 30 patients (15 males, 15 females, and 64±4.26 average age) who underwent MRCP tests. The equipment used was Ingenia CX 3.0 T equipment and Ds anterior coil was used for data acquisition. SNR and CNR of each image were measured through quantitative analysis, and the quality of the image was evaluated by dividing it into 5 grades for qualitative evaluation. The image evaluation was performed on the paired t-test and the Wilcoxon test, and when the p value was 0.05 or less, it was considered to be significant. As a result of quantitative analysis of SNR and CNR, 3D GRASE (BH) was measured high when comparing the two techniques, 2D TSE (RT) MRCP and 3D GRASE (BH) (p<0.05). The qualitative analysis result is a sharpness of the bile duct: 3D GRASE(BH): 4.12±0.03, Overall image quality: 3D GRASE(BH): 4.21±0.91 was high (p=0.001). The motion artifact of the bile duct showed no significant difference with two techniques(2D TSE(RT): 4.41±0.04, 3D GRASE(BH): 4.53±0.14(p=0.067). However, the background suppression obtained significant results with 2D TSE(RT) of 4.14±0.55(p=0.001). In conclusion, as a result of using the Fast MRCP testing method, MRCP images obtained by 3D GRASE (BH) had an advantage over MRCP images using 2D TSE (RT). However, there will be useful results of 2D TSE(RT) MRCP technique in patients who have difficulty holding their breath.
Keywords
TSE; 3D GRASE; RT; MRCP;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Y. Lyu, Y. Cheng, T. Li, B. Cheng, X. Jin, "Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus cholecystectomy versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a meta-analysis", Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 33, No. 10, pp. 3275-3286, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06613-w   DOI
2 F. K. Lohofer, G. A. Kaissis, M. Rasper, C. Katemann, A. Hock, J. M. Peeters, C. Schlag, E. J. Rummeny, D. Karampinos, R. F. Braren, "Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 3 Tesla: Image quality comparison between 3D compressed sensing and 2D single-shot acquisitions", European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 115, pp. 53-58, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.04.002   DOI
3 S. Morita , N. Saito, K. Suzuki, N. Mitsuhashi, "Biliary anatomy on 3D MRCP: Comparison of volume-rendering and maximum-intensity-projection algorithms", Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 601-606, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21398   DOI
4 Y. Takehara, "Can MRCP replace ERCP?," Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 517-534, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1880080303   DOI
5 M. Shirin, N. Sultana, R. Mondal, A. Pokhrel, "Diagnostic Evaluation of Isotropic 3D MRCP Images in the Diagnosis of Cholangiocarcinoma", Mymensingh Medical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 595-599, 2019.
6 D. K. Tso, R. R. Almeida, A. M. Prabhakar, A. K. Singh, A. Raja, E. J. Flores, "Accuracy and timeliness of an abbreviated emergency department MRCP protocol for choledocholithiasis", Emergency Radiology, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 424-432, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10140-019-01689-w   DOI
7 P. Boraschi, G. Braccini, R. Gigoni, M. Geloni, G. Perri, "MR cholangiopancreatography: value of axial and coronal fast Spin-Echo fat-suppressed T2-weighted sequences,zz", European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 171-181, 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(99)00002-9   DOI
8 J. Cheung, K. K. Tsoi, W. L. Quan, J. Y. Lau, J. J. Sung, "Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis", Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 70, No. 6, pp. 1211-1219, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2009.08.007   DOI
9 R. Mesihovic, A. Mehmedovic, "Better non-invasive endoscopic procedure: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography?", Medicinski Glasnik, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 40-44, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.17392/955-19   DOI
10 K. I. Ringe, D. Hartung, C. von Falck, F. Wacker, H. J. Raatschen, "3D-MRCP for evaluation of intraand extrahepatic bile ducts: comparison of different acquisition and reconstruction planes", BMC Medical Imaging, Vol. 14, No. 16, pp.1-6, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-14-16   DOI
11 M. Cova, F. Stacul, G. Cester, M. Ukmar, M. R. Pozzi, "MR cholangiopancreatography: comparison of 2D single-shot fast spin-echo and 3D fast spin-echo sequences", La Radiologia Medica, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 178-190, 2003.
12 J. G. Nam, J. M. Lee, H. J. K, S. M. Lee, E. j. Kim, J. M. Peeters, J. H. Yoon, "GRASE Revisited: breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using a Gradient and Spin Echo (GRASE) technique at 3T", European Radiology, Vol. 28, No. 9, pp. 3721-3728, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5275-0   DOI
13 J. G. Albert, J. F. Riemann, "ERCP and MRCP-when and why", Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 399-419, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/bega.2002.0315   DOI
14 K. Darge, S. Anupindi, "Pancreatitis and the role of US, MRCP and ERCP", Pediatric radiology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-009-1145-5   DOI
15 W. R. Badger, A. J. Borgert, K. J. Kallies, S. N. Kothari, "Utility of MRCP in clinical decision making of suspected choledocholithiasis: An institutional analysis and literature review", The American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 214, No. 2, pp. 251-255, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.10.025   DOI