Premium
Non‐contrast‐enhanced MR portography with time‐spatial labeling inversion pulses: Comparison of imaging with three‐dimensional half‐fourier fast spin‐echo and true steady‐state free‐precession sequences
Author(s) -
Shimada Kotaro,
Isoda Hiroyoshi,
Okada Tomohisa,
Kamae Toshikazu,
Arizono Shigeki,
Hirokawa Yuusuke,
Shibata Toshiya,
Togashi Kaori
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.21753
Subject(s) - steady state free precession imaging , portal vein , fourier transform , visualization , fast spin echo , contrast (vision) , medicine , nuclear medicine , precession , portography , magnetic resonance angiography , nuclear magnetic resonance , radiology , magnetic resonance imaging , physics , portal hypertension , computer science , optics , cirrhosis , quantum mechanics , artificial intelligence , gastroenterology , astronomy
Abstract Purpose To compare and evaluate images acquired with two different MR angiography (MRA) sequences, three‐dimensional (3D) half‐Fourier fast spin‐echo (FSE) and 3D true steady‐state free‐precession (SSFP) combined with two time‐spatial labeling inversion pulses (T‐SLIPs), for selective and non‐contrast‐enhanced (non‐CE) visualization of the portal vein. Materials and Methods Twenty healthy volunteers were examined using half‐Fourier FSE and true SSFP sequences on a 1.5T MRI system with two T‐SLIPs, one placed on the liver and thorax, and the other on the lower abdomen. For quantitative analysis, vessel‐to‐liver contrast (Cv‐l) ratios of the main portal vein (MPV), right portal vein (RPV), and left portal vein (LPV) were measured. The quality of visualization was also evaluated. Results In both pulse sequences, selective visualization of the portal vein was successfully conducted in all 20 volunteers. Quantitative evaluation showed significantly better Cv‐l at the RPVs and LPVs in half‐Fourier FSE ( P < 0.0001). At the MPV, Cv‐l was better in true SSFP, but was not statistically different. Visualization scores were significantly better only at branches of segments four and eight for half‐Fourier FSE ( P = 0.001 and 0.03, respectively). Conclusion Both 3D half‐Fourier FSE and true SSFP scans with T‐SLIPs enabled selective non‐CE visualization of the portal vein. Half‐Fourier FSE was considered appropriate for intrahepatic portal vein visualization, and true SSFP may be preferable when visualization of the MPV is required. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;29:1140–1146. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.