| 徐莉,梁长虹,萧远球,张忠林.体质量及BMI对肝脏3.0T单体素MR波谱抑水效果的影响[J].中国医学影像技术,2010,26(4):705~708 |
| 体质量及BMI对肝脏3.0T单体素MR波谱抑水效果的影响 |
| Effect of body mass and BMI on proton hepatic MRS water suppression at 3.0T MR |
| 投稿时间：2009-08-31 修订日期：2009-10-18 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 磁共振波谱 肝脏 单体素 |
| 英文关键词:Magnetic resonance spectroscopy Liver Single volume spectroscopy |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金(30800269)、广东省科技计划资助项目(2005B10401040、2007B031515008)、广东省自然科学基金资助项目(5001199)。 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2091 |
| 全文下载次数: 707 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 探讨并比较受检者体质量及体质量指数(BMI)对在体肝脏3.0T质子MRS预扫描抑水效果的影响。 方法 44名志愿者,使用GE Signa Excite HD 3.0T 超导磁共振扫描仪,8通道腹部相控阵线圈,单体素PRESS序列采集。参数为TR/TE 1500 ms/30 ms,NSA 64次,VOI 2 cm×2 cm×2 cm。采用SAGE进行后处理分析得到代谢物峰高及峰下面积。 结果 体质量较小组较体质量较大组的平均身高小 ,平均BMI较小 ,抑水效果更好(两组min—max分别为90—96、65—94;中位数为94、93)。Lip2峰高(两组min—max分别为1.41×104—5.76×105、3.45×104—1.75×106;中位数分别为9.00×104、2.58×105)及峰下面积(两组min—max分别为4.27×104—2.00×107、1.24 ×105 —5.00×107;中位数分别为2.64×105、1.19×106)较小。标准化脂质含量(min—max分别为0—0.11、0—0.96;中位数分别为0.01、0.04)更小。BMI较低组较BMI较高组平均体质量较小 ,平均年龄较小 ,抑水效果更好(两组min—max分别为90—96、65—95;中位数分别为94、93)。Lip2峰高(两组min—max分别为1.41×104—5.76×105、3.45×104—1.75×106;中位数分别为7.37×104、2.11×105)及峰下面积(两组min—max分别为4.27×104—2.00×107、1.24 ×105—5.00×107;中位数分别为2.64×105、1.19×106)较小。标准化脂质含量(min—max分别为0—0.08、0.01—0.96;中位数分别为0.01、0.04)更小。体质量与抑水率、BMI与抑水率等级相关系数分别为－0.478、－0.494。 结论 体质量及BMI增加伴随肝脏脂质沉积增加,影响波谱预扫描抑水效果,均为中等负相关,肥胖受检者更难达到良好的波谱预扫描结果从而更难获得高分辨的可析性波谱,BMI较体质量对预测略为敏感。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To explore the effect of body mass and body mass index (BMI) on proton hepatic MRS water suppression at 3.0T. Methods The prospective study of hepatic proton MRS was performed with GE Signa Excite HD 3.0T system and eight-channel torso phased-array coils using PRESS sequence in 44 healthy subjects. Liver spectra were collected with TR of 1500 ms, TE of 30 ms, VOI of 2 cm×2 cm×2 cm and NSA of 64 times. Areas and heights for metabolites resonances were caulculated. Results Group with small mass has lower height ( cm vs )cm, lower BMI ( kg/m2 vs kg/m2), better water suppression effect (min—max: 90—96 vs 65—94; median: 94 vs 93), smaller height (min—max: 1.41×104—5.76 ×105 vs 3.45×104—1.75×106; median: 9.00×104 vs 2.58×105) and integrated area (min—max: 4.27×104—2.00×107 vs 1.24×105—5.00×107; median: 2.64×105 vs 1.19×106)of Lip2 than larger weight group. Standardized lipid content (min—max: 0—0.11 vs 0—0.96; median: 0.01 vs 0.04) was less. Group with lower BMI had lower weight ( kg vs kg), smaller age ( years vs years), better water suppression effect(min—max: 90—96 vs 65—95; median: 94 vs 93) smaller of height (min—max: 1.41×104—5.76×105 vs 3.45×104—1.75×106; median: 7.37×104 vs 2.11×105) and integrated area (min—max: vs ; median: 2.64×105 vs 1.19×106) of Lip2 than larger weight group. Standardized lipid content (min—max: 0—0.08 vs 0.01—0.96; median: 0.01 vs 0.04) was less. There was significant correlation among water suppression, weight (r=－0.478, P=0.001) and BMI (r=－0.494, P=0.001). Conclusion Lipid accumulation in the liver may be the result of increased fat portion of the body depending on mass and BMI, and hinder to achieve effective water suppression. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
