AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kulkarni, M.
Right arrow Articles by Price, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kulkarni, M.
Right arrow Articles by Price, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 147, Issue 2, 373-378
Copyright © 1986 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Technical considerations for the use of surface coils in MRI

MV Kulkarni, JA Patton, and RR Price

The signal-to-noise response characteristics for two surface coils of different construction geometries (a single-turn planar coil and a single-turn saddle-shaped coil) were measured and compared with head and body coils. Measurements were made at different gradient magnifications (0, 20, 30, and 40%, relative to the head coil) and with different numbers of signal averages (3, 8, 12, and 18). The signal-to-noise curves were used to guide the selection of surface coils for use in clinical studies. This technique is useful in determining the optimal technique for specific clinical problems evaluated by surface-coil imaging. For the planar (flat) surface coils, the signal-to-noise per pixel was found to be superior to the conventional head coil at depths equal to or less than 5 cm. For the saddle coil, signal-to-noise per pixel was superior to the head coil for depths below 8.5 cm for magnifications up to 30%. For the 40% magnification, the depth at which the signal-to-noise was equal to the head coil decreased to about 6 cm. Surface coils have demonstrated a marked improvement in signal-to-noise relative to conventional head and body coils for superficial structures.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
I. S. Lee, J.-A. Choi, J. H. Oh, J.-H. Chung, H. S. Jeong, S. H. Hong, and H. S. Kang
Microscopy Coil for Preoperative MRI of Small Soft-Tissue Masses of the Hand and Foot: Comparison with Conventional Surface Coil
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2008; 191(6): W256 - W263.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
K. M. Welker, J. S. Tsuruda, J. R. Hadley, and C. E. Hayes
Radio-frequency Coil Selection for MR Imaging of the Brain and Skull Base
Radiology, October 1, 2001; 221(1): 11 - 25.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1986 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.