Initial clinical experience with a quadrupole butterfly coil for spinal injection interventions in an open MRI system at 1.0 tesla

Martin Jonczyk; Bernd Hamm; Andreas Heinrich; Andreas Thomas; Hendrik Rathke; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Felix Güttler; Ulf K.M. Teichgräber; Maximilian de Bucourt

doi:10.1515/bmt-2013-0066

Article

Initial clinical experience with a quadrupole butterfly coil for spinal injection interventions in an open MRI system at 1.0 tesla

Martin Jonczyk , Bernd Hamm , Andreas Heinrich , Andreas Thomas , Hendrik Rathke , Bernhard Schnackenburg , Felix Güttler , Ulf K.M. Teichgräber and Maximilian de Bucourt

Published/Copyright: October 24, 2013

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Biomedizinische Technik/Biomedical Engineering Volume 59 Issue 1

Abstract

Purpose: To report our initial clinical experience with a new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quadrupole coil that allows interventions in prone position.

Materials and methods: Fifteen patients (seven women, eight men; average age, 42.8 years) were treated in the same 1.0-Tesla Panorama High Field Open (HFO) MRI system (Panorama HFO) using a quadrupole butterfly coil (Bfly) and compared with 15 patients matched for sex, age, and MR intervention using the MultiPurposeL coil (MPL), performed in conventional lateral decubitus position (all, Philips Medical Systems, Best, The Netherlands). All interventions were performed with a near-real-time proton density turbo spin echo (PD TSE) sequence (time to repeat/time to echo/flip angle/acquisition time, 600 ms/10 ms/90°/3 s/image). Qualitative and quantitative image analyses were performed, including signal intensity, signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (SNR, CNR), contrast, and full width at half maximum (FWHM) measurements.

Results: Contrast differed significantly between the needle and muscles (Bfly 0.27/MPL 0.17), as well as the needle and periradicular fat (0.13/0.24) during the intervention (both, p=0.029), as well as the CNR between muscles and the needle (10.61/5.23; p=0.010), although the FWHM values did not (2.4/2.2; p=0.754). The signal intensity of the needle in interventional imaging (1152.9/793.2; p=0.006) and the postinterventional SNR values of subcutaneous fat (15.3/28.6; p=0.007), muscles (6.6/11.8; p=0.011), and the CNR between these tissues (8.7/17.5; p=0.004) yielded significant differences.

Conclusion: The new coil is a valid alternative for MR-guided interventions in an open MRI system at 1.0 tesla, especially if patients cannot (or prefer not to) be in a lateral decubitus position or if prone positioning yields better access to the target zone.

Keywords: image guidance; interventions; MRI; MRI coils

Corresponding author: Maximilian de Bucourt, MD, Dipl. Vw., Department of Radiology, Charité – University Medicine Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany, Phone: +49 (30) 450 627 085, E-mail: mdb@charite.de

References

[1] Clasen S, Boss A, Schmidt D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for hepatic radiofrequency ablation. Eur J Radiol 2006; 59: 140–148.10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.04.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Edelman RR, Wielopolski P, Schmitt F. Echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 1994; 192: 600–612.10.1148/radiology.192.3.8058920Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] Fritz J, Thomas C, Clasen S, Claussen CD, Lewin JS, Pereira PL. Freehand real-time MRI-guided lumbar spinal injection procedures at 1.5 T: feasibility, accuracy, and safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: W161–167.10.2214/AJR.08.1569Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Heron DE, Smith RP, Andrade RS. Advances in image-guided radiation therapy – the role of PET-CT. Med Dosim 2006; 31: 3–11.10.1016/j.meddos.2005.12.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Hoult DI, Chen CN, Sank VJ. Quadrature detection in the laboratory frame. Magn Reson Med 1984; 1: 339–353.10.1002/mrm.1910010305Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Hyde JS, Jesmanowicz A, Grist TM, Froncisz W, Kneeland JB. Quadrature detection surface coil. Magn Reson Med 1987; 4: 179–184.10.1002/mrm.1910040211Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Kumar A, Bottomley PA. Optimized quadrature surface coil designs. MAGMA 2008; 21: 41–52.10.1007/s10334-007-0090-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[8] Lee VS, Miller FH, Omary RA, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography and biomarkers to assess fibrosis from recurrent hepatitis C in liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 2011; 92: 581–586.10.1097/TP.0b013e31822805faSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] McRobbie DW, Moore EA, Graves MJ, Prince MR. Geometric parameters. MRI – from picture to proton. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press 2006: 213.10.1017/CBO9780511545405Search in Google Scholar

[10] Moche M, Zajonz D, Kahn T, Busse H. MRI-guided procedures in various regions of the body using a robotic assistance system in a closed-bore scanner: preliminary clinical experience and limitations. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 964–974.10.1002/jmri.21990Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Ouhlous M, Moelker A, Flick HJ, et al. Quadrature coil design for high-resolution carotid artery imaging scores better than a dual phased-array coil design with the same volume coverage. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25: 1079–1084.10.1002/jmri.20894Search in Google Scholar

[12] Redpath TW. Quadrature rf coil pairs. Magn Reson Med 1986; 3: 118–119.10.1002/mrm.1910030115Search in Google Scholar

[13] Roemer PB, Edelstein WA, Hayes CE, Souza SP, Mueller OM. The NMR phased array. Magn Reson Med 1990; 16: 192–225.10.1002/mrm.1910160203Search in Google Scholar

[14] Rump JC, Streitparth F, Böning G, et al. Evaluation of a MR-quadrupole imaging coil for spinal interventions in a vertical 1.0 T MRI. Magn Reson Med 2012; 68: 600–605.10.1002/mrm.23268Search in Google Scholar

[15] Sacks D, McClenny TE, Cardella JF, Lewis CA. Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14: S199–202.10.1097/01.RVI.0000094584.83406.3eSearch in Google Scholar

[16] Smith KA, Carrino J. MRI-guided interventions of the musculoskeletal system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 27: 339–346.10.1002/jmri.21274Search in Google Scholar

[17] Staubert A, Pastyr O, Echner G, et al. An integrated head-holder/coil for intraoperative MRI in open neurosurgery. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 11: 564–567.10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(200005)11:5<564::AID-JMRI13>3.0.CO;2-NSearch in Google Scholar

[18] Streitparth F, Walter T, Wonneberger U, et al. Image-guided spinal injection procedures in open high-field MRI with vertical field orientation: feasibility and technical features. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 395–403.10.1007/s00330-009-1567-3Search in Google Scholar

[19] Van Gompel JJ, Kallmes DF, Morris JM, Fode-Thomas NC, Atkinson JLD. Dyna-CT as an imaging adjunct to routine percutaneous balloon compression for trigeminal neuralgia. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2009; 87: 330–333.10.1159/000235805Search in Google Scholar

[20] Vogl TJ, Mayer HP, Zangos S, Selby JB, Ackermann H, Mayer FB. Prostate cancer: MR imaging-guided galvanotherapy – technical development and first clinical results. Radiology 2007; 245: 895–902.10.1148/radiol.2453061623Search in Google Scholar

[21] Zangos S, Müller C, Mayer F, et al. Retrospective 5-year analysis of MR-guided biopsies in a low-field MR system. Rofo 2009; 181: 658–663.10.1055/s-0028-1109349Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2013-6-29

Accepted: 2013-10-1

Published Online: 2013-10-24

Published in Print: 2014-02-01

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2013-0066

Keywords for this article

image guidance; interventions; MRI; MRI coils