Efficiency of Fat Suppression in T1-Weighted Inner Ear Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Multipoint Dixon Method Versus Hybrid Techniques

Author(s): Pinar Cakmak*, Duygu Herek*, Ahmet Baki Yagci, Ergin Sagtas, Furkan Ufuk, Vefa Çakmak

Journal Name: Current Medical Imaging
Formerly: Current Medical Imaging Reviews

Volume 17 , Issue 7 , 2021


Become EABM
Become Reviewer
Call for Editor

Graphical Abstract:


Abstract:

Background : Temporal bone is a region where fat suppression is difficult due to the inhomogeneity of various structures with different molecular properties.

Introduction:: We aimed to determine the most effective fat suppression sequence in order to increase the visibility of the inner ear region.

Materials and Methods: The hybrid techniques and T1-Weighted mDIXON images of 40 patients with Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging of the inner ear were prospectively compared by two experienced radiologists in terms of fat suppression efficacy. In all fat-suppressed sequences, the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), the spinal cord signal intensity / mean fat signal intensity ratio and spinal cord signal to noise ratio were calculated. The suppression efficacy of MR techniques for fat areas in the inner ear was visually graded.

Results: Qualitative assessment of image quality due to fat suppression in the inner ear was made; the Dixon technique performed significantly better than SPAIR and SPIR techniques (p<0.0001). The mean signal intensity of the inner ear fat and SNR for the Dixon technique were significantly lower than that for SPIR and SPAIR techniques (p<0.0001). Inter-observer agreement regarding the assessment of the inner ear fat, mean signal intensity values and mean SNR values for fat suppression techniques was significant.

Conclusion: The Dixon technique exhibited higher image quality and fat suppression efficiency than the hybrid techniques in the MR imaging of the inner ear.

Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging, inner ear, vertigo, signal to noise ratio, spinal cord, CHESS.

[1]
Delfaut EM, Beltran J, Johnson G, Rousseau J, Marchandise X, Cotten A. Fat suppression in MR imaging: techniques and pitfalls. Radiographics 1999; 19(2): 373-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.2.g99mr03373] [PMID: 10194785]
[2]
Bley TA, Wieben O, François CJ, Brittain JH, Reeder SB. Fat and water magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31(1): 4-18.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21895] [PMID: 20027567]
[3]
Del Grande F, Santini F, Herzka DA, et al. Fat-suppression techniques for 3-T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Radiographics 2014; 34(1): 217-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.341135130] [PMID: 24428292]
[4]
Dixon WT. Simple proton spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1984; 153(1): 189-94.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.153.1.6089263] [PMID: 6089263]
[5]
Brandão S, Seixas D, Ayres-Basto M, et al. Comparing T1-weighted and T2-weighted three-point Dixon technique with conventional T1-weighted fat-saturation and short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) techniques for the study of the lumbar spine in a short- bore MRI machine. Clin Radiol 2013; 68(11): e617-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.06.004] [PMID: 23932678]
[6]
Kishida Y, Koyama H, Seki S, et al. Comparison of fat suppression capability for chest MR imaging with Dixon, SPAIR and STIR techniques at 3 Tesla MR system. Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 47: 89-96.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2017.11.012] [PMID: 29180099]
[7]
Ma J, Jackson EF, Kumar AJ, Ginsberg LE. Improving fat-suppressed T2-weighted imaging of the head and neck with 2 fast spin-echo dixon techniques: initial experiences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30(1): 42-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1132] [PMID: 18653688]
[8]
Kirchgesner T, Perlepe V, Michoux N, Larbi A, Vande Berg B. Fat suppression at 2D MR imaging of the hands: Dixon method versus CHESS technique and STIR sequence. Eur J Radiol 2017; 89: 40-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.01.011] [PMID: 28267547]
[9]
Guerini H, Omoumi P, Guichoux F, et al. Fat suppression with dixon techniques in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance iaging: A pictorial review. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2015; 19(4): 335-47.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1565913] [PMID: 26583362]
[10]
Goerner FL, Clarke GD. Measuring signal-to-noise ratio in partially parallel imaging MRI. Med Phys 2011; 38(9): 5049-57.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3618730] [PMID: 21978049]
[11]
Rybicki FJ, Chung T, Reid J, Jaramillo D, Mulkern RV, Ma J. Fast three-point dixon MR imaging using low-resolution images for phase correction: A comparison with chemical shift selective fat suppression for pediatric musculoskeletal imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177(5): 1019-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.177.5.1771019] [PMID: 11641161]
[12]
Gaddikeri S, Mossa-Basha M, Andre JB, Hippe DS, Anzai Y. Optimal fat suppression in head and neck MRI: Comparison of multipoint dixon with 2 different fat-suppression techniques, spectral presaturation and inversion recovery, and STIR. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018; 39(2): 362-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5483] [PMID: 29242364]
[13]
Kirchgesner T, Perlepe V, Michoux N, Larbi A, Vande Berg B. Fat suppression at three-dimensional T1-weighted MR imaging of the hands: Dixon method versus CHESS technique. Diagn Interv Imaging 2018; 99(1): 23-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2017.09.004] [PMID: 29054404]


open access plus

Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

VOLUME: 17
ISSUE: 7
Year: 2021
Published on: 14 January, 2021
Page: [884 - 888]
Pages: 5
DOI: 10.2174/1573405617666210114141300

Article Metrics

PDF: 123
HTML: 3