Imaging of the Spine at 3 Tesla




Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 3 T has proved superior to 1.5 T in the brain for detecting numerous pathologic entities including hemosiderin, tiny metastases, subtle demyelinating plaques, active demyelinating plaques, and some epileptogenic foci, as well as small aneurysms with MR angiography. 3 T is superior to most advanced imaging techniques including diffusion, diffusion tensor imaging, perfusion, spectroscopy and functional MR imaging. The increased signal/noise ratio at 3 T permits higher spatial resolution. Initially spine imaging at 3 T proved more difficult with less successful results. During the past 7 years, technological advances in magnet and surface coil design as well as improved radio frequency transmitters and pulse sequence design in combination with the large body of knowledge accrued by radiologists and physicists during a nine year experience with clinical imaging of the spine with the doubled B0, has resulted in 3 T MRI of the spine achieving a reputation similar to that for brain imaging.








  • 3 T imaging of the spine shows improvements compared with 1.5 T.



  • Increased signal/noise ratio (SNR) allows for thinner slices and increased in-plane resolution and therefore better spatial resolution.



  • There is increased conspicuity of paramagnetic contrast at 3 T.



  • At 3 T, increased SNR also improves diffusion imaging, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), spectroscopy, functional magnetic resonance (MRI) imaging, spinal magnetic resonance (MRA) angiography and arterial spin labeling (ASL).



  • Increased susceptibility on T2 weighted (T2WIs) images and increased SNR produces improved blood level oxygen dependence (BOLD) effect at 3 T. The same combination with low dose gadolinium enhances perfusion imaging.



  • Increased chemical shift effect at 3 T improves spectroscopy and fat saturation (FS).



  • Parallel Imaging (PI) has a synchronous effect with 3 T which permits the use of higher PI factors. This shortens scan times thus ameliorating the increased SAR that is inherent when doubling the B0 from 1.5 T to 3 T.



Key Points






  • The goal is to improve the image quality and spatial resolution for each and every pulse sequence compared with 1.5 T.



  • Use thin slices and increased in-plane resolution in evaluation of cervical and thoracic spines. With T2 sagittal spin-echo sequences, BLADE helps diminish patient motion artifacts when scanning patients; especially young children and patients with movement disorders.



  • Use 2 mm sagittal and 2.5 mm slice thickness in the axial plane with T2 turbo spin echo (TSE) with or without FS, or use ultrathin sections with either T2 SPACE (sampling perfection with application optimized contrast by using different flip angle evolution) for subtle foraminal or lateral recess encroachment in patients with radiculopathy, and ultrathin three-dimensional (3D) or even two-dimensional (2D) imaging with the best sequence your manufacturer provides for differentiating cord gray and white matter.



  • 3D sequences mitigate flow (pulsation) artifacts that are exacerbated at 3 T.



  • T2 SPACE should be obtained only when seeking very high spatial resolution with pulsation dampening. SAR friendly but lacks adequate intramedullary contrast resolution and shouldn’t be used tor detecting subtle abnormalities in cord signal.



  • T1 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) should be the only T1 sagittal sequence for any region in the spine. It allows for best differentiation of all interfaces between all of the following; bone, disc with spinal cord, conus and cauda equina and best delineates soft tissue and/or bone with CSF. FS is as robust with T1 FLAIR as with T1 spin echo sequences.



  • For T1-weighted images in the axial plane for the thoracic or cervical regions, use T1 volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) or your manufacturer’s comparable sequence. Cord–cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) interfaces are obscured with T1 spin echo or conventional spin echo (CSE) in any plane. T1 VIBE and other 3D T1 gradient echo (GRE)-based techniques permit adequate detection of contrast enhancement while providing excellent spatial resolution and superb delineation of cord dimension as well as differentiation between cord-CSF and/or nerve root–CSF. The dampening of pulsation artifacts makes it even better for delineating these soft tissue–CSF interfaces. This author prefers VIBE FS for pre and post contrast axial T1 WIs.



  • In the author’s experience, STIR and T1 FLAIR with phase contrast are the two best sagittal sequences for evaluating demyelinating disease at 3 T; a new 3-point Dixon technique (IDEAL on GE medical systems MRI systems) that should be available on all fourth-generation and upgraded third-generation 3 T systems. This sequence provides better FS in patients who have pronounced susceptibility artifact from metal after surgery. It also provides excellent FS at the cervicothoracic junction for both soft tissue neck and brachial plexus imaging at 3 T.



  • There are multiple techniques (increasing bandwidth, turbo factor and matrices and decreasing, slice thickness and TE; orienting the frequency direction parallel to the long axis of metal may also help) mitigate susceptibility artifact thus improving image quality at any field strength because susceptibility scales with field strength.



  • Because susceptibility artifacts occur in the frequency direction, orienting frequency encoding parallel to the long axis of metal will help diminish these artifacts in patients with spine hardware.



  • There is a new sequence available on latest generation scanners that decreases both the in-plane and out-of-plane distortion that occurs with metal. It is designated slice encoding for metal artifact compensation (SEMAC).



  • Try advanced imaging techniques with late-generation 3 T systems. The author routinely does diffusion and DTI on all patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) spectroscopy and perfusion for tumors. The author tries T2-weighted perfusion technique (CBV) and dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) with permeability (Ktrans).



  • The authors, facility has lost less than 10 patients in 3 years due to claustrophobia or body habitus related to the ultrashort, 70 cm bore size. The short bore length also decreases SAR as with single-voxel spectroscopy when differentiating between an infectious-inflammatory lesion involving the cord and a primary cord tumor. Tractography can help differentiate between a cord glioma and ependymoma because ependymomas usually arise from the ependymal surface of the central canal and should theoretically splay white matter tracts apart, whereas gliomas tend to infiltrate tracts.



  • Similar to 3 T of the brain, when performing spinal cord perfusion, only half to one quarter the standard dose of gadolinium given at 1.5 T is necessary for all contrast enhanced spine imaging at 3 T.



  • Despite the significantly increased cost associated with new-generation wide-bore and shorter-bore systems, the financial burden is compensated by the imager’s ability to scan obese or extremely large, muscular patients whose body habitus may result in MR imaging that is nondiagnostic or equivocal if imaged on an open MRI scanner or perhaps even a 1.5 T, system. Most claustrophobic and very large patients tolerate being scanned in a 70-cm diameter, short-bore 3 T system.



Diagnostic Checklist
Since its introduction into the clinical realm in the early 1980s, MR imaging has evolved into the gold standard for evaluating the bone marrow of the spine as well as the soft tissues within and adjacent to the spinal canal. Early MR imaging field strengths ranged from 0.3 to 0.6 Tesla (T). In the mid-1980s, 1.5 T was introduced and, within a few years, achieved widespread acclaim as the optimal field strength for clinical MR imaging despite the presence of a 2 Tesla system in that era.


Nearly a decade has passed since 3 T was first made practical for spine MR imaging with the advent of a compatible 8-channel phased array spine coil. A limited supply of these coils prevented widespread use until late 2004. Most first-generation 3 T systems were not ready for routine clinical use. The only way that early 3 Ts could cope with the increased energy deposited in patients with the doubled magnetic field strength (B0) was by interrupting the scan to allow cooling.


Our first-generation 3 T was a long-bore (215 cm) system that was delivered in early 2003, followed by our first spine coil in May 2003. There were frequent scan interruptions and inadequate computer processing power to rapidly formulate the increased data generated by the thinner slices and increased matrices (in-plane resolution) that should be obtained using 3 T. As a result, patient scan times were excessively long and susceptible to motion artifact. Patient throughput was impossible and the quality of spine scans was not equal to those imaged on our 1.5 T.


One manufacturer’s first 3 T system precluded the user from adjusting receiver bandwidth, inversion times (TI), or turbo factor (TF; TF = ETL), resulting in poor susceptibility compensation and suboptimal contrast for certain pulse sequences including T1 FLAIR, which, in many experienced 3 T users’ opinions, is important for optimizing 3 T spine protocols ( Table 1 ).



Table 1

Protocols for 3 T





















































































CSPx Routine TR TE TI TA Matrix BLADE IPAT Turbo Factor Gated ST (mm) BW Roffset (Hz/px)
Sagittal T2 TSE
22 cm
3000 100 n/a 2:50 320 × 320 Yes Yes 2 21 No 2.0 260
Sagittal T1 FLAIR 22 cm 2000 18 800 3:06 320 × 256 No Yes 2 6 No 3 217
Axial T2 TSE FS 16 cm 5000 84 n/a 5:02 256 × 192 No Yes 2 16 No 2.5 279
Axial T2 MEDIC 650 17 n/a 5:33 512 × 384 No Yes 2 n/a No 2.5 399
7 elements
Abbreviations: BW, bandwidth; n/a, not applicable.
































































































CSP Cord TR TE TI TA Matrix BLADE IPAT Turbo Factor Gated ST (mm) BW (Hz/px)
Sagittal T2 STIR 22 cm 4000 47 220 2:50 320 × 256 No No 16 No 2.0 252
Sagittal T1 FLAIR 22 cm 2000 18 800 3:06 320 × 256 No Yes 2 6 No 3 217
Axial T2 FS 16 cm 5000 84 n/a 5:02 256 × 192 No Yes 2 16 No 2.5 279
Axial T1 VIBE 16 cm 6.37 2.45 n/a 2:54 256 × 248 no Yes 2 n/a No 3 360
Sagittal T1 FLAIR FS after 22 cm 000 18 800 3:06 320 × 256 No Yes 2 6 No 3 217
Axial T1 VIBE after 16 cm 6.37 2.45 n/a 2:54 256 × 248 No Yes 2 n/a No 3 360































C and T Spine for Cord DW Imaging TR TE EPI Factor TA Matrix BLADE IPAT Number of Shots Diffusion Weightings ST (mm) BW (Hz/px)
Sagittal multishot echoplanar DW imaging 2000 60 64 2:44 128 × 128 No 2 5 0
400
600
3 1028






































































TSP Routine TR TE TI TA Matrix BLADE IPAT Turbo Factor Gated ST (mm) BW (Hz/px)
Sagittal T2 TSE 32 cm 2500 89 n/a 4:22 384 × 307 No Yes 2 16 Yes 2.0 266
Sagittal T1 FLAIR 32 cm 2000 21 800 3:50 320 × 256 No Yes 2 8 No 3 217
Axial T2 FS 18 cm 3500 88 n/a 3:18 256 × 192 No No 12 Yes 3 337
11 elements
































































































TSP Cord TR TE TI TA Matrix BLADE IPAT Turbo Factor Gated ST (mm) BW (Hz/px)
Sagittal T STIR 32 cm 4000 57 220 4:42 384 × 288 No No 17 Yes 2 250
Sagittal T1 FLAIR 32 cm 2000 21 800 3:50 320 × 256 No Yes 2 8 No 3 217
Axial T2 FS ran upper and lower 18 cm 2800 75 n/a 3:32 256 × 192 No No 12 Yes 3 337
Axial T1 VIBE 18 cm 5.38 2.45 n/a 2:49 256 × 248 No Yes 2 n/a No 3 360
Sagittal T1 FLAIR FS after 32 cm 2000 21 800 3:50 320 × 256 No Yes 2 8 No 3 217
Axial T1 VIBE after 5.38 2.45 n/a 2:49 256 × 248 No Yes 2 n/a No 3 360



















































































LSP Routine TR TE TI TA Matrix BLADE IPAT Turbo Factor Gated ST (mm) BW (Hz/px)
Sagittal T2 TSE
26 cm
4300 85 n/a 2:41 384 × 288 no Yes 2 16 No 3 266
Sagittal T1 FLAIR 26 cm 1800 19 733 4:32 320 × 256 No Yes 2 7 No 3 265
Axial T2 FS 18 cm 4300 80 n/a 3:54 256 × 192 No no 16 No 3 305
Axial T1 18 cm 700 23 n/a 4:37 256 × 192 No No 4 No 3 300
9 elements





































LSP for Metastases, Primary Tumor, Infection, Inflammation, Substitute STIR 2.5 mm for Sagittal T2 TSE plus T1 FLAIR Sagittal with FS Before and After Gadolinium for these and After Surgery
Light Metal: CSP TE BW TF ST
T2 sagittal TSE 74 488 24 2.5
T1 sagittal FLAIR 14 488 6 3
T2 axial FS 84 434 21 2.5
T1 FSE 11 362 4 3



































Heavy Metal: CSP TE BW TF ST
T2 sagittal TSE 76 751 36 2.5
T1 sagittal FLAIR 14 401 6 3
T2 axial FS 84 454 24 2.5
T1 axial FSE 11 362 4 3

Mar 20, 2017 | Posted by in NEUROLOGICAL IMAGING | Comments Off on Imaging of the Spine at 3 Tesla

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access