A comparative study of Fatsat and Smartfat methods in fat suppression at knee joint on GE 1.5T optima 430 s MR system
LI Ying1, CHEN Zhi-an1, QI Wen-xu1, FU Shi-kuo2, LI Xiao-fei1, WANG Guo-qing1, LI Gen1, WANG Bo1, FANG Dan-feng1, WANG Bao-dong1, PAN Shi-nong1, LIAO Wei1, ZHENG Xiao-jun2, GUO Qi-yong1
1. Department of Radiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China;2. General Electronic Company(China) Healthcare, Beijing 100176, China
Abstract：Objective: All the traditional fat suppression methods have their own limitations, such as limitation of image quality, this study is through the comparative analysis of fat saturation technology of Fatsat and Smartfat methods for knee joint on GE 1.5T optima 430 s, to evaluate the fat suppression effect, MR image quality, examination time of the 2 methods in order to obtain the best optimal fat saturation technique. Materials and Methods: MR fat suppression sequences of the knee joints in 30 healthy volunteers were prospectively collected. There were 15 men and 15 women enrolled into this study, T1WI, T2WI, PD of bosh Fatsat and Smartfat were performed on each individual for comparison. The images of the ligament, cartilage, muscle, menisci and the signal uniformity, fat suppression effect and image quality were evaluated on each of these sequences by 2 experienced radiologists. The score of 3 points was indicated as image clear, 2 points as image less clear, and 1 point as image blurred. Each radiologist evaluated 2 times, so 4 sets of evaluation data were obtained. Fat suppression effect, image quality, examination time of the two methods were compared using t-text analysis, and the diagnostic consistency of the two radiologists and the same radiologist at different time were evaluated using the kappa test. Result: Fatsat T1WI got 7.5±0.98 points, Smartfat T1WI got 12.2±1.51 points, Fatsat T2WI got 8.4±0.43 points, Smartfat T2WI got 15.1±0.75 points, Fatsat PD got 8.7±0.21 points, Smartfat PD got 12.3±0.43 points. The differences were statistically significant. The diagnostic consistency of the 2 radiologists was very good(kappa>0.75). The total examination time of Fatsat was (637±29.6) seconds, Smartfat was (600±25.6) seconds, the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: The fat suppression effect and image quality of Smartfat sequence are substantially better than those of Fatsat, the examination time of Smartfat is relatively shorter than that of Fatsat.
李 颖;陈志安;乞文旭;付士阔;李晓飞;王国庆;李 根;王 搏;房丹凤;王宝东;潘诗农;廖 伟;郑晓军;郭启勇. GE 1.5T 430 s MR频率饱和法与水脂分离法膝关节抑制脂肪图像比较分析[J]. , 2013, 24(12期): 873-876.
LI Ying;CHEN Zhi-an;QI Wen-xu;FU Shi-kuo;LI Xiao-fei;WANG Guo-qing;LI Gen;WANG Bo;FANG Dan-feng;WANG Bao-dong;PAN Shi-nong;LIAO Wei;ZHENG Xiao-jun;GUO Qi-yong. A comparative study of Fatsat and Smartfat methods in fat suppression at knee joint on GE 1.5T optima 430 s MR system. , 2013, 24(12期): 873-876.
2013, Vol. 24 
