Premium
Contrast detection in fluid‐saturated media with magnetic resonance poroelastography
Author(s) -
Perriñez Phillip R.,
Pattison Adam J.,
Kennedy Francis E.,
Weaver John B.,
Paulsen Keith D.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.3443563
Subject(s) - poromechanics , magnetic resonance elastography , quasistatic process , viscoelasticity , elastography , materials science , displacement (psychology) , shear modulus , imaging phantom , hydraulic conductivity , mechanics , acoustics , nuclear magnetic resonance , optics , porous medium , physics , geology , composite material , thermodynamics , ultrasound , psychology , porosity , soil water , soil science , psychotherapist
Purpose Recent interest in the poroelastic behavior of tissues has led to the development of magnetic resonance poroelastography (MRPE) as an alternative to single‐phase MR elastographic image reconstruction. In addition to the elastic parameters (i.e., Lamé's constants) commonly associated with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), MRPE enables estimation of the time‐harmonic pore‐pressure field induced by external mechanical vibration. Methods This study presents numerical simulations that demonstrate the sensitivity of the computed displacement and pore‐pressure fields to a priori estimates of the experimentally derived model parameters. In addition, experimental data collected in three poroelastic phantoms are used to assess the quantitative accuracy of MR poroelastographic imaging through comparisons with both quasistatic and dynamic mechanical tests. Results The results indicate hydraulic conductivity to be the dominant parameter influencing the deformation behavior of poroelastic media under conditions applied during MRE. MRPE estimation of the matrix shear modulus was bracketed by the values determined from independent quasistatic and dynamic mechanical measurements as expected, whereas the contrast ratios for embedded inclusions were quantitatively similar (10%–15% difference between the reconstructed images and the mechanical tests). Conclusions The findings suggest that the addition of hydraulic conductivity and a viscoelastic solid component as parameters in the reconstruction may be warranted.