2
|
Winkler SA, Corea J, Lechêne B, O'Brien K, Bonanni JR, Chaudhari A, Alley M, Taviani V, Grafendorfer T, Robb F, Scott G, Pauly J, Lustig M, Arias AC, Vasanawala S. Evaluation of a Flexible 12-Channel Screen-printed Pediatric MRI Coil. Radiology 2019; 291:180-185. [PMID: 30806599 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181883] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Background Screen-printed MRI coil technology may reduce the need for bulky and heavy housing of coil electronics and may provide a better fit to patient anatomy to improve coil performance. Purpose To assess the performance and caregiver and clinician acceptance of a pediatric-sized screen-printed flexible MRI coil array as compared with conventional coil technology. Materials and Methods A pediatric-sized 12-channel coil array was designed by using a screen-printing process. Element coupling and phantom signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were assessed. Subjects were scanned by using the pediatric printed array between September and November 2017; results were compared with three age- and sex-matched historical control subjects by using a commercial 32-channel cardiac array at 3 T. Caregiver acceptance was assessed by asking nurses, technologists, anesthesiologists, and subjects or parents to rate their coil preference. Diagnostic quality of the images was evaluated by using a Likert scale (5 = high image quality, 1 = nondiagnostic). Image SNR was evaluated and compared. Results Twenty study participants were evaluated with the screen-printed coil (age range, 2 days to 12 years; 11 male and nine female subjects). Loaded pediatric phantom testing yielded similar noise covariance matrices and only slightly degraded SNR for the printed coil as compared with the commercial coil. The caregiver acceptance survey yielded a mean score of 4.1 ± 0.6 (scale: 1, preferred the commercial coil; 5, preferred the printed coil). Diagnostic quality score was 4.5 ± 0.6. Mean image SNR was 54 ± 49 (paraspinal muscle), 78 ± 51 (abdominal wall muscle), and 59 ± 35 (psoas) for the printed coil, as compared with 64 ± 55, 65 ± 48, and 57 ± 43, respectively, for the commercial coil; these SNR differences were not statistically significant (P = .26). Conclusion A flexible screen-printed pediatric MRI receive coil yields adequate signal-to-noise ratio in phantoms and pediatric study participants, with similar image quality but higher preference by subjects and their caregivers when compared with a conventional MRI coil. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lamb in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone Angela Winkler
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Joseph Corea
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Balthazar Lechêne
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Kendall O'Brien
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - John Ross Bonanni
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Akshay Chaudhari
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Marcus Alley
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Valentina Taviani
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Thomas Grafendorfer
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Fraser Robb
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Greig Scott
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - John Pauly
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Michael Lustig
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Ana Claudia Arias
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| | - Shreyas Vasanawala
- From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 (S.A.W., A.C., M.A., S.V.); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Calif (J.C., B.L., M.L., A.C.A.); Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, Calif (K.O., J.R.B.); GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, Calif (V.T.); GE Healthcare, Aurora, Ohio (T.G., F.R.); and Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (G.S., J.P.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhang T, Grafendorfer T, Cheng JY, Ning P, Rainey B, Giancola M, Ortman S, Robb FJ, Calderon PD, Hargreaves BA, Lustig M, Scott GC, Pauly JM, Vasanawala SS. A semiflexible 64-channel receive-only phased array for pediatric body MRI at 3T. Magn Reson Med 2015; 76:1015-21. [PMID: 26418283 DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25999] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2015] [Revised: 08/25/2015] [Accepted: 09/01/2015] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To design, construct, and validate a semiflexible 64-channel receive-only phased array for pediatric body MRI at 3T. METHODS A 64-channel receive-only phased array was developed and constructed. The designed flexible coil can easily conform to different patient sizes with nonoverlapping coil elements in the transverse plane. It can cover a field of view of up to 44 × 28 cm(2) and removes the need for coil repositioning for body MRI patients with multiple clinical concerns. The 64-channel coil was compared with a 32-channel standard coil for signal-to-noise ratio and parallel imaging performances on different phantoms. With IRB approval and informed consent/assent, the designed coil was validated on 21 consecutive pediatric patients. RESULTS The pediatric coil provided higher signal-to-noise ratio than the standard coil on different phantoms, with the averaged signal-to-noise ratio gain at least 23% over a depth of 7 cm along the cross-section of phantoms. It also achieved better parallel imaging performance under moderate acceleration factors. Good image quality (average score 4.6 out of 5) was achieved using the developed pediatric coil in the clinical studies. CONCLUSION A 64-channel semiflexible receive-only phased array has been developed and validated to facilitate high quality pediatric body MRI at 3T. Magn Reson Med 76:1015-1021, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tao Zhang
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.,Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | | | - Joseph Y Cheng
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.,Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Peigang Ning
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Paul D Calderon
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Brian A Hargreaves
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.,Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Michael Lustig
- Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.,Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
| | - Greig C Scott
- Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - John M Pauly
- Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|