Patient’s Comfort and Technical Quality Exams at 1.5 and 3.0 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

Increased interest of clinicians for using 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as imaging modality of choice for their patients, has been evident in the past few years. The aim of this study was to compare the technical quality of the obtained tomography using 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI, and to compare the subjective feeling of discomfort of patients and subjective acoustic noise experience during imaging using MRI at 3.0 T and 1.5 T. Brain MRI (1.5 and 3.0 T) was performed in 58 patients, according to a standardized protocol. All studies have been randomly described by independent two radiologists. The reference standard for the existence of technical artifact is established on the basis of both radiologists' consensus. We also compared the subjective feelings of the discomfort and acoustic noise during the both MRI (1.5 T and 3.0 T) exams. Artifacts were significantly more common during 3.0 T MRI in comparison with the 1.5 T MRI (χ 2 = 5.286, P < 0.05), as well as in male patients (χ 2 = 8.841, P < 0.05), and subjective assessments of discomfort and acoustic noise were higher in patients who underwent imaging using 3.0 T MRI, (χ 2 = 125.959, df = 1, P < 0.001) and in females (χ 2 = 195.449, df = 1, P < 0.001). Additional research is needed to prove that appropriate information for patients about the discomfort during 3.0 T MRI and their psychological preparation is very important element for optimal use of 3.0 T MRI in daily clinical practice.

Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of depth of invasion in tongue carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A higher magnetic field makes the recording more susceptible to the development of artifacts and the presence of a lack of homogeneity. [ 111 ] Also, increased patient discomfort in terms of nausea, weakness, metallic taste in the mouth, peripheral nerve stimulation, dizziness, and noise associated with sequencing (acoustic noise) has been reported with the 3.0 Tesla machine than with the 1.5 Tesla machine. [ 111 ] These observations in addition to our results indicate the superiority of the 1.5 Tesla MRI machine in DOI recording for tongue carcinomas.…”

“…[ 111 ] Also, increased patient discomfort in terms of nausea, weakness, metallic taste in the mouth, peripheral nerve stimulation, dizziness, and noise associated with sequencing (acoustic noise) has been reported with the 3.0 Tesla machine than with the 1.5 Tesla machine. [ 111 ] These observations in addition to our results indicate the superiority of the 1.5 Tesla MRI machine in DOI recording for tongue carcinomas. Thus, the authors wish to provide a direction toward the possible differences and need for more studies focusing on this comparative aspect so that conclusive scientific evidence can be generated, and MRI can be recorded in the future with higher clinical relevance.…”