Multi‐center benchmarking of cervical spinal cord RF coils for 7 T MRI: A traveling spines study.
Saved in:
| Title: | Multi‐center benchmarking of cervical spinal cord RF coils for 7 T MRI: A traveling spines study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Alonso‐Ortiz, Eva1,2 (AUTHOR) eva.alonso-ortiz@polymtl.ca, Papp, Daniel1 (AUTHOR), Barry, Robert L.3,4,5 (AUTHOR), Poëti, Kyota6 (AUTHOR), Seifert, Alan C.7 (AUTHOR), Gilbert, Kyle M.8,9 (AUTHOR), Lopez‐Rios, Nibardo1 (AUTHOR), Paska, Jan1 (AUTHOR), Eippert, Falk10 (AUTHOR), Weiskopf, Nikolaus11,12,13 (AUTHOR), Beghini, Laura14 (AUTHOR), Graedel, Nadine N.15 (AUTHOR), Trampel, Robert11 (AUTHOR), Callaghan, Martina F.15 (AUTHOR), Aigner, Christoph S.16,17 (AUTHOR), Freund, Patrick11,18 (AUTHOR), Seif, Maryam11,18 (AUTHOR), Destruel, Aurélien19,20 (AUTHOR), Callot, Virginie19,20 (AUTHOR), Vannesjo, Johanna14 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Sep2025, Vol. 94 Issue 3, p1339-1355. 17p. |
| Subjects: | Cervical cord, Spinal cord, Quality control, Magnetic resonance imaging, Spine |
| Abstract: | Purpose: The depth within the body, small diameter, long length, and varying tissue surrounding the spinal cord impose specific considerations when designing RF coils. The optimal coil configuration for 7 T cervical spinal cord MRI is unknown and currently there are very few coil options. The purpose of this work was (1) to establish a quality control protocol for evaluating 7 T cervical spinal cord coils, and (2) to use that protocol to evaluate the performance of four different coil designs. Methods: Three healthy volunteers and a custom anthropomorphic phantom (the traveling spines cohort) were scanned at seven 7 T imaging centers using a common protocol and each center's specific cervical spinal cord coil. Four different coil designs were tested (two in‐house, one Rapid Biomedical, and one MRI.TOOLS design). Results: The Rapid Biomedical coil was found to have the highest B1+$$ {\mathrm{B}}_1^{+} $$ efficiency, whereas one of the in‐house designs (NeuroPoly Lab) had the highest SNR and the largest spinal cord coverage. The MRI.TOOLS coil had the most uniform B1+$$ {\mathrm{B}}_1^{+} $$ profile along the cervical spinal cord; however, it was limited in its ability to provide the requested flip angles (especially for larger individuals). The latter was also the case for the second in‐house coil (MSSM). Conclusion: The results of this study serve as a guide for the spinal cord MRI community in selecting the most suitable coil based on specific requirements and offer a standardized protocol for assessing future coils. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: The depth within the body, small diameter, long length, and varying tissue surrounding the spinal cord impose specific considerations when designing RF coils. The optimal coil configuration for 7 T cervical spinal cord MRI is unknown and currently there are very few coil options. The purpose of this work was (1) to establish a quality control protocol for evaluating 7 T cervical spinal cord coils, and (2) to use that protocol to evaluate the performance of four different coil designs. Methods: Three healthy volunteers and a custom anthropomorphic phantom (the traveling spines cohort) were scanned at seven 7 T imaging centers using a common protocol and each center's specific cervical spinal cord coil. Four different coil designs were tested (two in‐house, one Rapid Biomedical, and one MRI.TOOLS design). Results: The Rapid Biomedical coil was found to have the highest B1+$$ {\mathrm{B}}_1^{+} $$ efficiency, whereas one of the in‐house designs (NeuroPoly Lab) had the highest SNR and the largest spinal cord coverage. The MRI.TOOLS coil had the most uniform B1+$$ {\mathrm{B}}_1^{+} $$ profile along the cervical spinal cord; however, it was limited in its ability to provide the requested flip angles (especially for larger individuals). The latter was also the case for the second in‐house coil (MSSM). Conclusion: The results of this study serve as a guide for the spinal cord MRI community in selecting the most suitable coil based on specific requirements and offer a standardized protocol for assessing future coils. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 07403194 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/mrm.30551 |
