Since its introduction to medical imaging in the early 1980s, MRI has become essential
in diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Most imaging in the United
States is performed on high-field whole-body scanners (>1.0 T). Imaging on low (<0.5
T) and medium (0.5–1.0 T) field strengths using small, low-cost, easily installed
scanners in physicians' offices or imaging centers has gained increasing popularity.
These scanners can be useful in imaging the upper extremity from the shoulder to the
fingers. In this review, we provide an overview of the different extremity scanners
available and their advantages and disadvantages, a brief review of the literature
regarding their use, and a discussion of our experience in using the low-field extremity
scanners in evaluating the upper extremity.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribers receive full online access to your subscription and archive of back issues up to and including 2002.
Content published before 2002 is available via pay-per-view purchase only.
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinics in Sports MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Utilization of low-field MR scanners.Magn Reson Med Sci. 2004; 3: 27-38
- Extremity scanners.in: Edelman R.R. Hesselink J.R. Zlatkin M.B. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd edition. Elsevier, Philadelphia2005: 3649-3667
- Identification of wrist and metacarpophalangeal joint erosions using a portable-MR system compared to conventional X-ray.J Rheumatol. 2004; 31: 676-685
- Dedicated extremity MR imaging: an emerging technology.Radiol Clin North Am. 1997; 33: 1-20
- Effect of field strength on MR images: comparison of the same subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T.Radiographics. 1999; 19: 1057-1067
- Contrast use at low field: A review.Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003; 14: 360-364
- Results of a prospective multicenter study for evaluation of the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-filed MRI unit: a comparison with high-filed MRI measured by the applicable gold standard.Eur J Radiol. 1999; 30: 43-53
- High-field and low-field MR imaging of superior glenoid labral tears and associated tendon injuries.AJR. 2000; 174: 1107-1114
- Evaluation of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using a 0.2 tesla extremity magnetic resonance (MR) system: MR results compared to surgical findings.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001; 14: 763-770
- Comparison of high-field-strength versus low-field-strength MRI of the shoulder.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181: 1211-1215
- Assessment of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using an extremity MR system: MR results compared to surgical findings form a multi-center study.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004; 19: 623-631
- Glenoid labrum: evaluation with MR imaging.Radiology. 1991; 179: 519-522
- MR diagnosis of superior labrum-anterior to posterior (SLAP) injuries of the glenoid: value of routine imaging without intraarticular injection of contrast material.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994; 163: 1425-1429
- Labral-ligamentous complex of the shoulder: evaluation with MR arthrography.Radiology. 1994; 190: 645-651
- Glenoid labral tears: prospective evaluation with MR imaging, MR arthrography and CT arthrography.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993; 161: 1229-1235
- MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison with conventional MR imaging.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990; 155: 829-832
- Early MRI in the management of clinical scaphoid fracture.Br J Radiol. 2003; 76: 296-300
- MRI in radiologically occult scaphoid fractures: initial experiences with 1.0 Tesla (whole body middle-field equipment) versus 0.2 Tesla (dedicated low-field equipment).Radiologe. 1997; 37: 812-818
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
