Department of Radiology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, 29 Xin-Quan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
MR Application, Siemens Healthineers Ltd, Guangzhou, China.
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020 Jan;45(1):134-140. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-02342-3.
The purpose of this study was to compare the proposed rapid NT-MRCP protocol and the conventional NT-MRCP protocol with respect to image quality as well as the acquisition time.
Between January 2019 and May 2019, a total number of 67 consecutive patients with suspected pancreaticobiliary diseases were included in this prospective study and underwent 3D rapid MRCP and 3D conventional MRCP sequences. Both acquisition protocols were set from the same navigator-triggered 3D SPACE sequence. The acquisition time was recorded. Two blinded radiologists performed qualitative analyses with respect to overall image quality, motion artifacts, and CBD visibility using a four-point scale. Quantitative evaluation included the contrast, signal-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-noise ratio (CNR) between the common bile duct (CBD) and periductal tissues. A paired t test was used to assess differences in the qualitative and quantitative evaluations between the two acquisition methods.
All MRCP studies were completed successfully. The mean acquisition time of rapid NT-MRCP (96.64 ± 30.55 s) was significantly lower than that of the conventional NT-MRCP (271.42 ± 61.63 s; p < 0.001).The contrast ratio, SNR, and CNR of the CBD were significantly higher for conventional NT-MRCP than with rapid NT-MRCP images (0.95 ± 0.02 vs. 0.93 ± 0.03, p < 0.001; 10.36 ± 4.63 vs. 8.90 ± 4.71, p = 0.011; 14.01 ± 6.02 vs. 12.22 ± 6.36, p = 0.020, respectively). The rapid MRCP depicted the overall image quality, artifacts, CBD visibility, right and left hepatic duct, segment 2 branch, main pancreatic duct, and cystic duct significantly better compared with conventional MRCP (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two methods regarding visibility of anterior, posterior, and segment 3 branches (p > 0.05).
In conclusion, the proposed rapid MRCP protocol yielded significantly higher overall image quality and better visualization of the pancreaticobiliary tree with a significantly reduced imaging time without deterioration of image quality compared with the conventional MRCP at 3T.
本研究旨在比较所提出的快速 NT-MRCP 方案与传统 NT-MRCP 方案在图像质量和采集时间方面的差异。
2019 年 1 月至 2019 年 5 月,前瞻性纳入了 67 例疑似胰胆管疾病的患者,所有患者均行 3D 快速 MRCP 和 3D 传统 MRCP 序列检查。两种采集方案均基于相同的导航触发 3D SPACE 序列。记录采集时间。两名盲法放射科医生使用 4 分制对整体图像质量、运动伪影和 CBD 可视性进行定性分析。定量评估包括胆总管 (CBD) 和胆管周围组织之间的对比度、信噪比 (SNR) 和对比噪声比 (CNR)。采用配对 t 检验评估两种采集方法在定性和定量评估方面的差异。
所有 MRCP 研究均顺利完成。快速 NT-MRCP 的平均采集时间 (96.64 ± 30.55 s) 明显低于传统 NT-MRCP (271.42 ± 61.63 s;p < 0.001)。常规 NT-MRCP 的 CBD 对比度、SNR 和 CNR 明显高于快速 NT-MRCP 图像(0.95 ± 0.02 比 0.93 ± 0.03,p < 0.001;10.36 ± 4.63 比 8.90 ± 4.71,p = 0.011;14.01 ± 6.02 比 12.22 ± 6.36,p = 0.020)。快速 MRCP 与常规 MRCP 相比,可显著提高整体图像质量、降低运动伪影、提高 CBD 可视性、右肝管、左肝管、2 段胆管、主胰管和胆囊管的可视性(p < 0.05)。两种方法在前、后和 3 段胆管的可视性方面无统计学差异(p > 0.05)。
总之,与 3T 常规 MRCP 相比,该快速 MRCP 方案可显著提高整体图像质量,更好地显示胰胆管树,同时显著缩短成像时间,而不会降低图像质量。