Background Reduced field‐of‐view diffusion‐weighted imaging (rDWI) with tilted two‐dimensional radiofrequency (RF) excitation planes has not yet been applied to the imaging of the pancreas although the utility of this technique which allows the acquisition of high‐quality images without aliasing artifacts in the phase‐encoding direction has been evaluated for brain and spinal cord imaging. Purpose To evaluate the visual image quality of the pancreas by tilting the excitation plane (tilted rDWI) in comparison to conventional DWI (cDWI) and rDWI without using the tilted excitation plane. Study type Retrospective. Population Thirty‐two patients evaluated for suspected pancreatobiliary diseases. Field Strength/Sequence Echo‐planar imaging DWI (cDWI, rDWI, and tilted rDWI) acquired at 3 T. Assessment Images from each DWI sequence were analyzed by five radiologists to compare image quality (conspicuity of pancreatic edges, interslice signal homogeneity, overall image quality, and conspicuity of focal pancreatic lesions) and artifacts (presence of blurring or ghosting artifacts, susceptibility artifacts, and aliasing artifact). Statistical Tests Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to assess whether data were normally distributed. Friedman test followed by Bonferroni‐adjusted Wilcoxon signed‐rank test for post hoc analysis was performed to compare image quality and artifact scores. Results The mean scores for conspicuity of pancreatic edges (3.36 vs. 2.37), interslice signal homogeneity (3.14 vs. 2.81), presence of ghosting artifacts (3.32 vs. 2.66), susceptibility artifacts (3.06 vs. 2.30), and aliasing artifacts (3.90 vs. 2.34), and overall image quality (3.49 vs. 2.36) were significantly higher in the tilted rDWI than in the rDWI (P < 0.017 for all parameters). The conspicuity score for focal pancreatic lesions tended to be higher in tilted rDWI than in rDWI (2.44 vs. 2.00, P = 0.07). Data Conclusion Tilted rDWI had better image quality and reduced artifacts relative to cDWI and rDWI techniques in the pancreas. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 2

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract