Patient acceptance of high-field whole-body MR systems, open MR systems and dedicated MR systems for the extremities

Abstract

To our knowledge no comparative studies investigating patients' acceptance of different MR systems have been published. We therefore studied a number of subjective criteria to evaluate both patients' acceptance of and subjective conditions during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. MRI studies were performed using four separate systems. Two were conventional body MR systems operating at 1.0 or 1.5 Tesla, another was a 0.2 Tesla open whole-body MR system, and the last was a 0.2 Tesla MR system dedicated to the study of extremities. Forty patients for each MR system (total of 160 patients) participated in a standardized, written interview focusing on aspects of their subjective condition, including their perception and acceptance of different factors relevant to the study on respective MR systems. The patients' subjective condition and acceptance was predominantly positive for all MR systems. Differences between MR systems were noted with respect to noise, width of patient gantry, comfort of patient positioning and degree of well-being. Such differences, however, do not lend preference to the use of one particular type of MR system. Therefore, the choice of MR system should be based on the technical features required for the intended studies.

High-Field Open versus Short-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Spine: A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Image Quality

“…Mehdizade et al found that diffusion-weighted MR imaging performed with a low-field open MR scanner was reliable for the evaluation of acute stroke [32]. Regarding the restrictions of conventional MR imaging, horizontal open MR scanners have shown potential for facilitating imaging of patients with claustrophobia or extreme obesity [5], [7], [8], and a better patient acceptance is assumed for open MR scanners [5], [10], [11]. Reduced claustrophobia rates have also been found with recent short-bore MR scanners [2], [9].…”

“…Most notable differences were found in overall image quality, mean SNR values, and quantitative contour sharpness. Previous studies have shown an advantage of open MR scanners regarding patient acceptance and imaging of claustrophobic or obese patients [5], [6], [7], [10], [11]. However, high claustrophobia rates have recently been found in patients at risk for both open and short-bore MR imaging [8].…”

“…Modern MR scanners with these configurations have already shown a potential for reducing claustrophobia and allowing imaging of extremely obese patients [2], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Previous studies have also demonstrated improved patient acceptability of open-configuration MR scanners [5], [10], [11]. Besides patient preference, diagnostic performance and thus image quality is crucial for a comparison of different MR systems.…”

Reduction of claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: methods and design of the "CLAUSTRO" randomized controlled trial

“…Heuck et al compared two high-field closed MR systems operating at 1.5-T and 1.0-T with an open whole-body scanner and a dedicated extremity MR system, both operating at 0.2-T [37]. In 40 patients examined on each system (160 total) they found a mainly positive condition and acceptance for all MR scanners.…”

Contrast-Enhanced MRA of Carotid and Vertebral Arteries

“…They found a lower rate of sedation and an eased biomonitoring of the patient. According to Hayashi et al and Heuck et al, lowfield systems offer far lower costs at no or a neglectable loss of diagnostic performance [25,26].…”