Satoru Morita
   Department   School of Medicine(Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital), School of Medicine
   Position   Assistant Professor
Article types Original article
Language English
Peer review Peer reviewed
Title Navigator-triggered prospective acquisition correction (PACE) technique vs. conventional respiratory-triggered technique for free-breathing 3D MRCP: an initial prospective comparative study using healthy volunteers
Journal Formal name:J Magn Reson Imaging
ISSN code:1053-1807
Volume, Issue, Page 28(3),pp.673-7
Author and coauthor Morita, S., Ueno, E., Suzuki, K., Machida, H., Fujimura, M., Kojima, S., Hirata, M., Ohnishi, T., Imura, C.
Authorship Lead author,Corresponding author
Publication date 2008
Summary To confirm the superiority of the navigator-triggered prospective acquisition correction (PACE) technique over the conventional respiratory-triggered (RESP) technique, something that has been perceived experimentally but without definite evidence, for free-breathing three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) using healthy volunteers.|Free-breathing 3D turbo spin-echo MRCP using both PACE and RESP techniques were prospectively performed on 25 healthy volunteers. Quantitative analyses of acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and contour sharpness index of each segment of the pancreaticobiliary tree were compared using the paired t-test. Qualitative analyses on a five-point scale (1, excellent; 5, poor) scored by two independent radiologists were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|The subjective image quality and contour sharpness index of each segment of the PACE technique were found to be significantly better than those for RESP (P<0.05). No significant difference was observed with regard to signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios except for the pancreatic duct. No significant difference in acquisition times between PACE and RESP techniques was observed.|We confirmed the superiority of the image quality of the PACE technique compared to conventional RESP technique for free-breathing 3D MRCP in healthy volunteers.
DOI 10.1002/jmri.21485
Document No. 18777550