Comparison of MRI brain in multiple sclerosis patients at 1.5 T and 3.0 T MRI scanners: A follow up study

Main Article Content

Qurain Turki Alshammari, Abdulrahman Muidh Althobaiti, Fahad Hamdan Alnazhan, Rayan Mohammed Almesned, Abdulwahab Hassan Albloushi, Mohammed Marai Al Dukain,
Nabeel Ibrahim Alzahrani, Reem Essa Jokhab, Mohammadreza Elhaie, Rawan Saad Alhawiti, Badriah Aqla Alfuhigi, Meshari T. Alshammari

Abstract

Objective:


The symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis (MS), a complex autoimmune disease, are numerous. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive technique for diagnosis and monitoring treatment of MS. Recently, the high magnetic field MRI system performed routinely for MS patients. The purpose of the study was to retrospectively evaluate the sensitivity of MRI scanning for multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions at 1.5-T and 3.0-T during 6 month follow-up period.


Method:


We retrospectively studied brain MRI at 1.5-T and 3.0-T in 28 MS patients. MRI scans were performed on two visits, at baseline and six months later. The scanning protocol was identical at all time points and the period between 1.5-T and 3.0T scans was 72 hours. The scanning protocol included contiguous axial of FLAIR, T2WI, Proton density, T1WI, and postcontrast T1 weighted imaging.


Result:


The overall mean number of lesions was significantly higher in 3 Tesla (21 lesions) compared to 1.5 Tesla (11 lesions) (P<0.05).  The overall mean number of lesions was significantly higher in 3 Tesla at follow up visit (25 lesions) compared to baseline visit (21 lesions) (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the overall mean number of lesion between 1.5 tesla at follow up visit (12 lesions) compared to baseline visit (11 lesions) (P>0.05).


Conclusion:


Using high-field MRI system could improve the sensitivity for early detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis would influence by strength of magnetic field scanner. A further large cohort study is recommended for protocol optimization with different scanner strength and various imaging vendors.

Article Details

Section
Articles