» Articles » PMID: 17374468

MR Imaging of Claustrophobic Patients in an Open 1.0T Scanner: Motion Artifacts and Patient Acceptability Compared with Closed Bore Magnets

Overview
Journal Eur J Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2007 Mar 22
PMID 17374468
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To evaluate motion artifacts and patient acceptability of MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner.

Subjects And Methods: Thirty six claustrophobic patients were enrolled prospectively, 34 of which had previous MR examinations in closed bore magnets. Anxiety and pain during MR examination in an open 1.0T scanner were evaluated by visual analogue scales and various tests. Influence of motion artifacts on image quality was evaluated by two radiologists independently using a five-point scale. Additionally, 36 non-claustrophobic patients delivered a reference value of a non-claustrophobic population for the visual analogue anxiety scale.

Results: Termination rate of MR imaging of highly claustrophobic patients decreased from 58.3% (n=21) in closed bore magnets to 8.3% (n=3) in the open scanner (p<or=0.001). Anxiety during MR examination was reduced from 87.1+/-16.7 (closed magnets) to 30.4+/-30.8 (open magnet) (p<or=0.001) on visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100. Influence of motion artifacts on image quality was very little (inter-rater reliability r=0.74; p<0.01).

Conclusions: MR imaging using an open 1.0T scanner yielded a significantly decreased anxiety and subsequently an improved acceptability in claustrophobic patients compared with closed bore magnets. Motion artifacts did not influence image quality.

Citing Articles

What factors affect a patient's subjective perception of MRI examination.

Dostal M, Jurasova K, Kerkovsky M, Vanicek J, Kalas L, Latal L Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):22731.

PMID: 39349714 PMC: 11442905. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-74231-9.


Re-attendance in supplemental breast MRI screening rounds of the DENSE trial for women with extremely dense breasts.

Veenhuizen S, van Grinsven S, Laseur I, Bakker M, Monninkhof E, de Lange S Eur Radiol. 2024; 34(10):6334-6347.

PMID: 38639912 PMC: 11399182. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10685-9.


Citizen science approach to assessing patient perception of MRI with flexible radiofrequency coils.

Nohava L, Czerny R, Tik M, Wurzer D, Laistler E, Frass-Kriegl R Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2811.

PMID: 38307928 PMC: 10837436. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-53364-x.


Impact of extended pre-scan written instructions on motion artifacts during head magnetic resonance imaging.

Salih S, Abdulaal O, Gameraddin M, Alhasan M, Hasaneen M J Med Life. 2022; 15(9):1181-1183.

PMID: 36415520 PMC: 9635239. DOI: 10.25122/jml-2022-0133.


Patient preferences for development in MRI scanner design: a survey of claustrophobic patients in a randomized study.

Iwan E, Yang J, Enders J, Napp A, Rief M, Dewey M Eur Radiol. 2020; 31(3):1325-1335.

PMID: 32876831 PMC: 7880963. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07060-9.