title: MRI of the lumbar spine at 7 Tesla in healthy volunteers and a patient with congenital malformations.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to evaluate sequences that are established at lower magnetic field strengths for lumbar spine imaging at 7 Tesla (7 T) MR imaging.
  
  
  METHODS
  The lumbar spine of five healthy volunteers and a patient with spina bifida and meningocele were evaluated at 7 T. The examination included a T2-TSE (turbo spin echo), a 3D-DESS (double-echo steady-state sequence), a 3D-CISS (constructive interference in steady-state sequence), and a 3D-VIBE (volumetric interpolated breath hold examination) sequence. Imaging quality was evaluated by two raters on a three-level scale. The assessment included visualization of intraforaminal structures, the cauda equina, facet joints, and any abnormalities. Contrast ratios for intervertebral discs/vertebral bodies, vertebral bodies/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and CSF/spinal cord were calculated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The 3D-VIBE sequence provided best differentiation between intraforaminal structures. Visualization of the facet joints was reliable with VIBE, DESS, and CISS. Individual nerve roots of the cauda equina could only be delineated with the 3D-CISS sequence. CISS and DESS provided good contrast between vertebral bodies and intervertebral discs. Contrast between CSF and vertebral bodies was most pronounced for the T2-TSE sequence. Sufficient contrast between CSF and the spinal cord was only achieved with the T2-TSE sequence. VIBE and DESS sequences demonstrated best the bony malformations. Visualization of the meningocele was only possible with the 3D-CISS sequence.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  At 7 T most structures of the lumbar spine were visualized with a combination of sequences. At present, imaging quality is not superior to 1.5 T or 3 T, precluding routine clinical use.
authors: Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Campus, Giessen, Germany. Astrid.Grams@googlemail.com
authors: Astrid E
authors: AE
authors: Grams
authors: Oliver
authors: O
authors: Kraff
authors: Lale
authors: L
authors: Umutlu
authors: Stefan
authors: S
authors: Maderwald
authors: Philipp
authors: P
authors: Dammann
authors: Mark E
authors: ME
authors: Ladd
authors: Michael
authors: M
authors: Forsting
authors: Elke R
authors: ER
authors: Gizewski
references: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Jun;17(3):220-5
references: 15167338
references: Am J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun;31(3):285-92
references: 18525309
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Nov-Dec;27(10):2098-103
references: 17110675
references: Invest Radiol. 2007 Jun;42(6):449-59
references: 17507818
references: Radiology. 1999 Sep;212(3):876-84
references: 10478260
references: Magn Reson Med. 2007 Feb;57(2):362-8
references: 17260378
references: Br J Radiol. 2001 Sep;74(885):862-73
references: 11560838
references: Surg Neurol. 2005 Apr;63(4):372-4
references: 15808728
references: Neuroradiology. 1995 Apr;37(3):187-91
references: 7603592
references: Magn Reson Med. 2005 Dec;54(6):1503-18
references: 16270333
references: Invest Radiol. 2009 Nov;44(11):734-40
references: 19809342
references: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010 Feb;57(2):397-403
references: 19709956
references: J Magn Reson. 2011 Feb;208(2):291-7
references: 21134773
references: Acta Radiol. 2002 Jan;43(1):96-100
references: 11972470
references: Rontgenpraxis. 1998;51(7):258-65
references: 9793409