Comparing 0.2 tesla with 1.5 tesla intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging: Analysis of setup, workflow, and efficiency

被引:64
|
作者
Nimsky, C [1 ]
Ganslandt, O [1 ]
Fahlbusch, R [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Erlangen Nurnberg, Dept Neurosurg, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
关键词
functional navigation; intraoperative imaging; resection control; workflow analysis;
D O I
10.1016/j.acra.2005.05.020
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Rationale and Objectives. To compare low-field with high-field intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in respect to setup, workflow, and efficiency. Materials and Methods. A total of 750 patients were investigated either with a 0.2 T (March 1996-July 2001) or a 1.5 T (April 2002-August 2004) MRI system adapted for intraoperative use. Results. With the low-field setup, 330 patients were examined in 65 months; with the high-field setup, 420 patients were examined in 29 months, which is a 2.8-fold increase in cases per month (14.5 versus 5.1) reflecting improved ease of use. Concerning intraoperative workflow, the time for preparation to start intraoperative imaging decreased fivefold (2 minutes instead of 10 minutes); navigation was applied more often with 57% versus 51% (240/420 versus 167/330), whereas functional data were integrated in 35% versus 39% (84/240 versus 65/167). Application of navigation updates was doubled (22% versus 11%; 53/240 versus 18/167). Image acquisition time was reduced by a factor of two, allowing a more detailed imaging protocol, whereas the image quality is clearly improved in the high-field setup, where there was no difference between the standard preoperative image quality compared with the intraoperative quality. This contributed to an increased detection of tumor remnants and extended resections in pituitary (36% versus 29%; 47/129 versus 17/59) and glioma surgery (41% versus 26%; 38/93 versus 28/106). Conclusion. Compared with the low-field setup, the high-field setup results not only in clearly superior image quality and increased imaging armamentarium, contributing to increased rates of detected tumor remnants, but also in a distinct improvement of intraoperative workflow. Furthermore, intraoperative high-field MRI offers various modalities beyond standard anatomic imaging, such as magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion tensor imaging, and functional MRI.
引用
收藏
页码:1065 / 1079
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Intraoperative 3 tesla magnetic resonance imaging: our experience in tumors
    Garcia-Baizan, A.
    Tomas-Biosca, A.
    Bartolome Leal, P.
    Dominguez, P. D.
    de Eulate Ruiz, R. Garcia
    Tejada, S.
    Zubieta, J. L.
    RADIOLOGIA, 2018, 60 (02): : 136 - 142
  • [22] A Moveable 3-Tesla Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging System
    Lang, Michael J.
    Kelly, John J.
    Sutherland, Garnette R.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2011, 68 : ons168 - ons179
  • [23] Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3 Tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease: A comparison with 1.5 Tesla
    Cheng, A.
    Pegg, T.
    Karamitsos, T.
    Robson, M.
    Searle, N.
    Jerosch-Herold, M.
    Choudhury, R.
    Banning, A.
    Selvanayagam, J.
    HEART, 2007, 93 : A21 - A21
  • [24] Optimising magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging and surgical planning in colon cancer at 1.5 tesla and 3.0 tesla
    Hunter, C. J.
    Scurr, E.
    Jeyadevan, N.
    Collins, D. J.
    Abulafi, M.
    Tekkis, P. P.
    Georgiou, P. A.
    Leach, M. O.
    Brown, G.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2011, 29 (04)
  • [25] No Evidence for the Superiority of 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging Over 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Wrist Ligamentous Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Hergar, Luca
    Kovacs, Norbert
    Agocs, Gergely
    Weninger, Viktor
    Skaliczki, Gabor
    Lutz, Elmar
    Hegyi, Peter
    Kovacs, Balazs Krisztian
    Hetthessy, Judit Reka
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2024, 40 (11):
  • [26] Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 tesla detects more lesions in acute optic neuritis than at 1.5 tesla
    Nielsen, K
    Rostrup, E
    Frederiksen, JL
    Knudsen, S
    Mathiesen, HK
    Hanson, LG
    Paulson, OB
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2006, 41 (02) : 76 - 82
  • [27] 3.0 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients
    Butler, Reni S.
    Chen, Christine
    Vashi, Reena
    Hooley, Regina J.
    Philpotts, Liane E.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2013, 5 (08): : 285 - 294
  • [28] 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Cuzino, Dragos
    Codorean, Ioan
    ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF MILITARY MEDICINE, 2010, 113 (01) : 14 - 17
  • [29] Analysis of cardiac function-comparison between 1.5 tesla and 3.0 tesla cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging - Preliminary experience
    Michaely, HJ
    Nael, K
    Schoenberg, SO
    Laub, G
    Reiser, MF
    Finn, JP
    Ruehm, SG
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2006, 41 (02) : 133 - 140
  • [30] Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla
    Scarabino, T
    Nemore, F
    Giannatempo, GM
    Maiorana, A
    Di Salle, F
    Bertolino, A
    Tedeschi, G
    Salvolini, U
    RIVISTA DI NEURORADIOLOGIA, 2003, 16 : 314 - 315