Low-Field-Strength Body MRI: Challenges and Opportunities at 0.55 T.

Advances in MRI technology have led to the development of low-field-strength (hereafter, "low-field") (0.55 T) MRI systems with lower weight, fewer shielding requirements, and lower cost than those of traditional (1.5-3 T) systems. The trade-offs of lower signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at 0.55 T are partially offset by patient safety and potential comfort advantages (eg, lower specific absorption rate and a more cost-effective larger bore diameter) and physical advantages (eg, decreased T2* decay, shorter T1 relaxation times). Image reconstruction advances leveraging developing technologies (such as deep learning-based denoising) can be paired with traditional techniques (such as increasing the number of signal averages) to improve SNR. The overall image quality produced by low-field MRI systems, although perhaps somewhat inferior to 1.5-3 T MRI systems in terms of SNR, is nevertheless diagnostic for a broad variety of body imaging applications. Effective low-field body MRI requires (a) an understanding of the trade-offs resulting from lower field strengths, (b) an approach to modifying routine sequences to overcome SNR challenges, and (c) a workflow for carefully selecting appropriate patients. The authors describe the rationale, opportunities, and challenges of low-field body MRI; discuss important considerations for low-field imaging with common body MRI sequences; and delineate a variety of use cases for low-field body MRI. The authors also include lessons learned from their preliminary experience with a new low-field MRI system at a tertiary care center. Finally, they explore the future of low-field MRI, summarizing current limitations and potential future developments that may enhance the clinical adoption of this technology. ©RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center. See the invited commentary by Venkatesh in this issue.

Diffusion of myelin water.

We studied compartmentally specific characteristics of water diffusion in excised frog sciatic nerve by combining T1 or T2 selective acquisitions with pulse-gradient spin-echo (PGSE) diffusion weighting, with the specific objective of characterizing myelin water diffusion. Combining a PGSE with a Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill (CPMG) acquisition provided apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) for each of the three T2 components found in nerve, including the short-lived component believed to be derived from myelin water. Double-inversion-recovery (DIR) preparation provided an alternate means of discriminating myelin water, and in combination with PGSE provided somewhat different measures of ADC. The DIR measures yielded myelin water ADCs of 0.37 microm2/ms (parallel to nerve) and 0.13 microm2/ms (perpendicular to nerve). These ADC estimates were postulated to be more accurate than those based on T2 discrimination, although the difference between the two findings is not clear.