This talk will briefly describe different fast imaging techniques that can be applied to MSK imaging, including parallel imaging, compressed sensing imaging, simultaneous multislice imaging, and more recently, MR fingerprinting and deep learning-based approaches. The advantages and limitations of different methods will be discussed, and their applications in various MSK MR studies will be reviewed.
Target Audience
Researchers interested in advanced fast MR imaging techniques and their applications in the musculoskeletal system.Abstract
MRI has been a primary tool for the noninvasive diagnosis of musculoskeletal (MSK) diseases. A clinical MSK imaging protocol usually consists of multislice 2D acquisitions in different orientations, and the scans need to be repeated for generation of different types of contrast. Although one may think it is relatively easier to acquire MSK images compared to other organs, such as the liver and the heart, due to the absence of major physiological motion, MSK images usually require finer spatial resolution to capture tiny pathological findings. Such a long exam time, typically around 30 minutes in a typical clinical MSK exam, reduces patient discomfort and patient experience during the exam.
It has long been a hot research topic to apply various rapid and advanced imaging methods to MSK imaging. These techniques include parallel imaging1-3, compressed sensing imaging4-7, simultaneous multislice imaging8, and more recently, MR fingerprinting9 and deep learning-based reconstruction approaches10. Some of these methods hold great promise in reducing the scan time of a MSK MR exam from half an hour to less than 10 minutes, which could greatly improve the total experience of MSK imaging both for patients and for technologists. More importantly, fast imaging techniques can also enable imaging applications (e.g., T2 or T1rho mapping11) that are currently unavailable in a clinical setting due to insufficient imaging speed.
This talk will review different fast imaging techniques that can be applied to MSK imaging, will discuss their corresponding advantages and limitations, and will summarize their applications for various MSK MR studies.
1. Sodickson DK, Manning WJ. Magn Reson Med. 1997 Oct;38(4):591-603.
2. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. Magn Reson Med. 1999 Nov;42(5):952-62.
3. Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, Nittka M, Jellus V, Wang J, Kiefer B, Haase A. Magn Reson Med. 2002 Jun;47(6):1202-10.
4. Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM. Magn Reson Med. 2007 Dec;58(6):1182-95.
5. Tamir JI, Uecker M, Chen W, Lai P, Alley MT, Vasanawala SS, Lustig M. Magn Reson Med. 2017 Jan;77(1):180-195. doi: 10.1002/mrm.26102. Epub 2016 Jan 20.
6. Kijowski R, Rosas H, Samsonov A, King K, Peters R, Liu F. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Jun;45(6):1712-1722
7. Altahawi FF, Blount KJ, Morley NP, Raithel E, Omar IM. Skeletal Radiol. 2017 Jan;46(1):7-15.
8. Barth M, Breuer F, Koopmans PJ, Norris DG, Poser BA. Magn Reson Med. 2016 Jan;75(1):63-81
9. Ma D, Gulani V, Seiberlich N, Liu K, Sunshine JL, Duerk JL, Griswold MA. Nature. 2013 Mar 14; 495(7440): 187–192.
10. Hammernik K, Klatzer T, Kobler E, Recht MP, Sodickson DK, Pock T, Knoll F. Magn Reson Med. 2018 Jun;79(6):3055-3071
11. Zibetti MVW, Baboli R, Chang G, Otazo R, Regatte RR. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Nov;48(5):1185-1198