Purpose
Acoustic noise generated during magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is an unwanted side effect that may cause discomfort in patients and healthcare professionals.
The problems associated with acoustic noise include simple annoyance,
heightened anxiety,
verbal communication difficulties (1),
temporary hearing loss and,
in extreme cases,
the potential permanent hearing impairment (2-4). It is been reported temporary shifts in hearing thresholds in 43% of the patients scanned without ear protection and patients with improperly fitted earplugs (2).
Additionally,
acoustic noise may pose a particular hazard to specific...
Methods and Materials
This is an on-going trial prospective study.
Our aim is to include 50 subjects in this project.
Subjects will be scanned with the “Quiet” T2 PROPELLER and “Quiet” T2 FLAIR PROPELLER technique in addition to conventional T2 PROPELLER and T2 FLAIR PROPELLER on a 1.5T MR.
To date,
8 subjects have been included.
2 healthy volunteers (two men,
age range 26-45) and 6 patients (three women,
three men,
age range 79-34) diagnosed with stroke (n=2),
headache (n=1),
multiple sclerosis (n=1),
metastatic disease (n=1) and first...
Results
Preliminary Results:
Quantitative analysis
ROIs were successfully measured for 9 subjects.
The mean SD in the white matter parenchyma on conventional T2 PROPELLER was 25.94 ± 6.8,
and “Quiet” T2 PROPELLER was 24.6 ± 5.7.
No significant difference in the mean SD was identified between the two sequences (p = 0.17). The mean SD in the white matter parenchyma on conventional T2 FLAIR PROPELLER (21.94 ± 5.69) was significantly higher in comparison to the “Quiet” T2 FLAIR PROPELLER sequences (18.6 ± 4.8) (p<0.02).
Qualitative analysis...
Conclusion
“Quiet” T2 PROPELLER and “Quiet” T2 FLAIR PROPELLER were comparable in quality to conventional PROPELLER acquisitions with no significant tradeoffs aside from longer scan times.
“Quiet” PROPELLER T2 and “Quiet” T2 FLAIR PROPELLER provide equivalent quality at comfortable sound pressure levels and can replace conventional sequences for routine evaluations of the brain.
References
Moelker A,
Maas RA,
Pattynama PM.
Verbal communication in MR environments: effect of MR system acoustic noise on speech understanding.
Radiology.
2004;232(1):107-13.
Brummett RE,
Talbot JM,
Charuhas P.
Potential hearing loss resulting from MR imaging.
Radiology.
1988;169(2):539-40.
Radomskij P,
Schmidt MA,
Heron CW,
Prasher D.
Effect of MRI noise on cochlear function.
Lancet.
2002;359(9316):1485.
McJury M,
Shellock FG.
Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: a review.
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.
2000;12(1):37-45.
Reeves MJ,
Brandreth M,
Whitby EH,
et al.
Neonatal cochlear function:...
Personal Information
LN Tanenbaum MD FACR
Department of Radiology.
Neuroradiology.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
One Gustave L.
Levy Place
New York,
NY 10029-6574
[email protected]