Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:16541224rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0011923lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16541224lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0449438lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16541224lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0016884lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16541224lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0521116lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:issue6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:dateCreated2006-6-5lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:abstractTextMagnetic resonance (MR) imaging has become an important diagnostic tool in evaluation of the musculoskeletal system. While most examinations are currently performed at magnetic field strengths of 1.5 T or lower, whole-body MR systems operating at 3.0 T have recently become available for clinical use. The higher field strengths promise various benefits, including increased signal-to-noise ratios, enhanced T2* contrast, increased chemical shift resolution, and most likely a better diagnostic performance in various applications. However, the changed T1, T2, and T2* relaxation times, the increased resonance-frequency differences caused by susceptibility and chemical-shift differences, and the increased absorption of radiofrequency (RF) energy by the tissues pose new challenges and/or offer new opportunities for imaging at 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T. Some of these issues have been successfully addressed only in the very recent past. This review discusses technical aspects of 3.0 T imaging as far as they have an impact on clinical routine. An overview of the current data is presented, with a focus on areas where 3.0 T promises equivalent or improved performance compared 1.5 T or lower field strengths.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:monthJunlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:issn0938-7994lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:authorpubmed-author:WeishauptDomi...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:authorpubmed-author:NanzDanielDlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BologNicolaeNlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:volume16lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:pagination1298-307lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16541224...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:year2006lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:articleTitleMuskuloskeletal MR imaging at 3.0 T: current status and future perspectives.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:affiliationInstitute of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16541224pubmed:publicationTypeReviewlld:pubmed