Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Formation image de resonance magnetique Parallel Imaging Artifacts in Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Objective: To familiarize the reader with the fundamental concepts of partial parallel imaging (PPI); to review the technical aspects of PPI including calibration scan, coil geometry, and field of view (FOV); and to illustrate artifacts related to parallel imaging and describe solutions to minimize their negative impact. Results: PPI has led to a significant advance in body magnetic resonance imaging by reducing the time required to generate an image without loss of spatial resolution. Although PPI can improve image quality, it is not free of artifacts, which can result in significant image degradation. Knowledge of these artifacts and how to minimize their effect is important to optimize the use of parallel imaging for specific body magnetic resonance imaging applications. Conclusions: The reader will be introduced to the fundamental principles of PPI. Common imaging characteristics of PPI artifacts will be displayed with an emphasis on those seen with image-based methods, the principles behind their generation presented, and measures to minimize their negative impact will be proposed.

[1]  Robin M Heidemann,et al.  Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA) , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[2]  Raja Muthupillai,et al.  Implications of SENSE MR in routine clinical practice. , 2003, European journal of radiology.

[3]  Roland Bammer,et al.  Parallel Imaging of the Abdomen , 2004, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[4]  Yasuo Nakajima,et al.  Coil sensitivity encoding in MR imaging: advantages and disadvantages in clinical practice. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  N. Rofsky,et al.  Shortening MR image acquisition time for volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination with a recently developed parallel imaging reconstruction technique: clinical feasibility. , 2004, Radiology.

[6]  D. Larkman,et al.  Parallel magnetic resonance imaging , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Christine Preibisch,et al.  Comparison of parallel acquisition techniques generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA) and modified sensitivity encoding (mSENSE) in functional MRI (fMRI) at 3T , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  James F Glockner,et al.  Parallel MR imaging: a user's guide. , 2005, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[9]  J. Pipe.  Motion correction with PROPELLER MRI: Application to head motion and free‐breathing cardiac imaging , 1999, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[10]  Jianmin Wang,et al.  Field‐of‐view limitations in parallel imaging , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[11]  Robin M Heidemann,et al.  SMASH, SENSE, PILS, GRAPPA: How to Choose the Optimal Method , 2004, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[12]  Roland Bammer,et al.  Current Concepts and Advances in Clinical Parallel Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2004, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[13]  Peter M. Jakob,et al.  AUTO-SMASH: A self-calibrating technique for SMASH imaging , 1998, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[14]  Kaori Togashi,et al.  Evaluation of motion correction effect and image quality with the periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction (PROPELLER) (BLADE) and parallel imaging acquisition technique in the upper abdomen , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  James W Goldfarb.  The SENSE ghost: Field‐of‐view restrictions for SENSE imaging , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[16]  P. Boesiger,et al.  SENSE: Sensitivity encoding for fast MRI , 1999, Magnetic resonance in medicine.