All Open MRI 02 - 023T - Comparison - Report - 05097 - 2005

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/350053930
0.2T - 0.23T Open MRI systems, Issue 5. Comparative report of four MRI
systems
Technical Report · December 2005

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24307.45605
CITATIONS READS
0 1,999
3 authors, including:
Ioannis Delakis Caroline Renaud

UNSW Sydney Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
62 PUBLICATIONS 212 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ioannis Delakis on 14 March 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Report 05097
0.2T - 0.23T open MRI systems
Issue 5
December 2005
www.pasa.nhs.uk/cep Health and social care working together

About evaluation reports
The Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing provides independent and objective
evaluations of medical devices available on the UK market. Specialist centres, mainly in
NHS Trusts, do the evaluations under contract to the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
(NHS PASA). Results are available on our website (www.pasa.nhs.uk/cep).
Our evaluations are usually of products supplied by the manufacturer. We expect these
products to be representative of those on the market but cannot guarantee this.
Prospective purchasers should satisfy themselves about any modifications that might have
been made after our evaluation.
The Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing (formerly the Device Evaluation Service)
transferred from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to NHS PASA
on 1 September 2005. We are currently undergoing extensive redesign to help us provide
the information that purchasers want in the way they want it presented. Please visit our
website to keep updated.
Meanwhile, newly published evaluation reports will continue to be e-mailed to subscribers

and posted on our website.
How to obtain evaluation publications

To order evaluation reports or to sign up for our e-mail alert service contact:
Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing

Room 152C, Skipton House
80 London Road
London
SE1 6HL
Tel: 020 7972 6080

Fax: 020 7972 5795
E-mail: cep@pasa.nhs.uk
All evaluation reports published since 2002 are available in full colour to download from
our website: www.pasa.nhs.uk/cep
Visit our website for a comprehensive list of publications, details of forthcoming

evaluations, services and contacts.
0.2T- 0.23T open MRI systems
Issue 5
Comparative report of four

MRI systems
David Price, Ioannis Delakis, Caroline Renaud
MagNET
Bagrit Centre
Department of Bioengineering
Imperial College London
Exhibition Road
London SW7 2AZ
Tel: 020 7594 6305

Fax: 020 7954 6337
E-mail: enquiry@magnet-mri.org
For more information on MagNET visit www.magnet-mri.org.
© Crown Copyright 2005
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism, or review,
as permitted under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act, 1998, this publication may only be
reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means with the prior permission, in
writing, of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO).
Information on reproduction outside these terms can be found on the HMSO website
(www.hmso.gov.uk) or e-mail: hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
Contents
Summary ....................................................................... 1
Purpose of this report ............................................... 1
Comparative specifications....................................... 1
Technical evaluation................................................. 1
Introduction................................................................... 2
Structure................................................................... 2
Evaluated systems ................................................... 3
Comparative specification ........................................... 4
Magnet system ......................................................... 4
RF system ................................................................ 7
Gradient system ....................................................... 8
Sequence information............................................... 9
Computer system ................................................... 11
Radio-frequency (RF) coils..................................... 13
Technical evaluation................................................... 18
Details of assessment ............................................ 18
Quadrature head coil evaluation............................. 19
Body coil evaluation................................................ 24
Spatial resolution .................................................... 27
Geometric tests ...................................................... 29
Slice profile and slice width .................................... 34
Imaging speed measurements ............................... 36
Acoustic noise ........................................................ 39
Acknowledgements .................................................... 41
References .................................................................. 42
Appendix ..................................................................... 43
Manufacturers’ comments ...................................... 43
2D imaging speed................................................... 44
3D imaging speed................................................... 48
Summary
Purpose of this report

CEP has produced a series of comparison reports to aid in the selection of MRI
equipment for the NHS. Although most hospitals are purchasing 1.5 tesla (T)
MRI systems there is an interest in open systems as they provide an easy
access, patient friendly and economical alternative to cylindrical magnets. This
report provides comparative specifications and technical evaluation of open MRI
systems from 0.2 T to 0.23 T.
Comparative specifications
The comparative specification is presented as a side-by-side summary
comparison of the specifications of each scanner and related equipment. It is
grouped into a series of sub-sections relating to different aspects of the
scanner, such as magnet, gradients, coils etc. Specification data were supplied
by the manufacturers. The data have not been verified by CEP.
Technical evaluation
The technical evaluation section presents a detailed analysis of the head and
body coils available from each manufacturer. Parameters such as signal-to-
noise ratio, uniformity, resolution are included in the evaluation. The data are
published after consultation with manufacturers. Their comments are included in
the appendix.
Report 05097: 0.2T-0.23T open MRI systems - Issue 5
1
Introduction
This report combines system specifications, safety and technical evaluation

results to provide a comprehensive comparison of 0.2T to 0.23T open MRI
systems available on the UK market. It is an update of the previous issue 4, with
the new specifications for all systems and new data for the Philips Panorama
system. We are aiming to include new technical evaluation data for the GE,
Hitachi and Siemens systems in the next issue of this report.
The aim of the technical assessment is to obtain type-test measurements of

imaging performance of MRI systems. Type-testing is the evaluation of one
machine, confirmed by the manufacturer as operating to specification that is
taken to be representative of that model. The measurements enable a
comparison of different type-tested MRI systems. The technical evaluation is
normally carried out at a factory site with the full cooperation of the
manufacturer. In special circumstances, where resources are available, the
evaluation may be carried out at a clinical site. The results are of a scientific
nature and are intended as a guide to image performance.
The reader is also referred to the following NHS document for the built-
environment requirements of an open MR suite: Extremity and open MRI,
magnetic shielding and construction for radiation protection (HBN 6-volume 3.
This volume is available via the Department of health website:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/fs/en).
This report does not attempt to explain MRI. Readers who are unfamiliar with
this modality may have difficulty understanding the results presented in this
report. In this case, advice should be sought from a suitably qualified MRI
specialist.
Structure
The main body of the report is divided into two sections, the first presents
system specifications, system information and safety evaluation, and the

second gives technical evaluation results. The results contained in this report
are published after consultation with the manufacturer. Their comments are
included in the Appendix.
2
Evaluated systems
This report presents system specifications and technical evaluation data for the
MRI systems listed below and shown in Figure 1.
Table 1. 0.2T – 0.23T Open MRI systems

Manufacturer GE Hitachi Philips Siemens
Model Profile Airis Mate Panorama MAGNETOM
Concerto
Field Strength (T) 0.2 0.2 0.23 0.2
Figure 1. Evaluated open systems
GE Profile Hitachi Airis Mate

Philips Panorama Siemens MAGNETOM Concerto
3
Comparative specification
The specification data were supplied by the manufacturers and have not been
verified by CEP.
Magnet system
Table 2: Magnet specification
GE Hitachi Philips Siemens
Parameter
Profile Airis Mate Panorama Concerto
RF frequency MHz 8.54 8.5 9.8 8.25
Type Permanent Permanent Resistive Permanent

Shielding Passive Passive Passive Passive
Homogeneity < 5.00 (RMS) <±4 <4 ppm, 36 cm <5
40 cm DSV ppm (20 cm DSV) DSV typical, (36 cm DSV)
< 5ppm
guarantee,
0.8ppm, 20cm
DSV typically,
<1 ppm
guarantee
Number of 13 13 8 13
measurement planes
Number of points per 12 12 24 12
plane
Field stability ppm/hr <5 Data not <±1.5/10 min <±1.2/10min
supplied by the @ room
manufacturer temperature
Cooling system None None Closed loop Heating system
water cooling to stabilize
permanent
magnet
Table 3: Shimming details

Passive on installation Computer Mechanical Yes Computer
aided and aided
mechanical
Number of shim plates 2 Data not Up to 248 168 shim
supplied by magnets
manufacturer
Active with patient in position Gradient Gradient Yes 3 linear terms
auto-shim via auto-shim via via gradient
prescan prescan offsets
Number of independent 4 Data not 6 3 (linear

channels supplied by gradient
manufacturer offset)
4
User information
Table 4: Patient comfort details

Patient aperture:
Width cm 120 Data not 124 120 (side
supplied by loading)
manufacturer
Depth cm 179 Data not 137 195 (side
supplied by loading)
manufacturer
Height 44 38 46 46
(pole to pole) cm
Height 42 37 44 39
(couch to pole) cm
Magnet length with 193 168 206 195
covers cm
Scanner length cm 389 243 206 210(table)
Patient couch:
Min. height cm 60 66 80 82
Max. height cm 60 66 80 82
Table top width cm 72 65 80 79
Body mass limit 180 135 200 200
(full movement) kg
Table 5: Installation details

Mass:
magnet only tonnes 8.9 7.5 13.1 11.3

total tonnes 10.0 7.8 13.2 11.5
Depth (with covers) (y) cm 387 243 206 195
Width (with covers) (x) cm 220 224 129 120
Height (with covers) (z) cm 150 146 201 193
Horizontal (x,y) 0.5 mT fringe field 1.7x1.8 1.25×1.4 Front 2.5× 2.1×2.2
m Rear 2.4 2.1×1.9
Vertical (z) 0.5 mT fringe field m 2.0 1.9 Top 2.5 x 1.9
bottom 2.5
Minimum installed area m2* 23 16 17 30
Minimum ceiling height cm* 230 240 234 225
To include 0.5 mT fringe field
5
User information
Table 6: Electronics cabinets

Cabinets
Number 1 1 3+1 1
Total width cm 58 100 180 + 52 97
Maximum depth cm 86 78 80 66
Maximum height cm 175 178 194 196
Cooling system Air Air Air Air
6
User information
RF system
Table 7. RF system specification
Name/type/ Data not Data not Synergy Data not
version of the system supplied by supplied by platform supplied by
manufacturer manufacturer manufacturer
Number of Data not Data not 4/4 2
independent RF supplied by supplied by
receiver channels manufacturer manufacturer
(standard/
optional)
Bandwidth of each Data not Data not 330 kHz 0.5
independent RF supplied by supplied by
receiver channel manufacturer manufacturer
(MHz)
Number of Analog-to- Data not Data not 1 x 18bits 1 (reads out
Digital Converters for supplied by supplied by amplitude and
each independent RF manufacturer manufacturer phase)
channel
Sampling frequency of Data not Data not 40 MHz 10
each Analog-to-Digital supplied by supplied by
Converter (MHz) manufacturer manufacturer
7
User information
Gradient system
Table 8: Gradient system specification
Shielding Self shielded Passive Active Active
Single axis maximum amplitude
x mT/m 15 15 18 20
y mT/m 15 15 18 20
z mT/m 15 15 21 20
Single axis slew rate
x mT/m/ms 30 30 30 40
y mT/m/ms 30 30 30 40
z mT/m/ms 30 30 50 40
Duty cycle at max amplitude 100% 50% 50% 100%
Amplitude @100% duty cycle 15 10 8 (x,y) 20
mT/m 9 (z)
8
User information
Sequence information
Quoted values correspond to imaging with no interpolation, no asymmetric
echo, no partial Fourier, no parallel imaging, no fat-sat, no rectangular matrix,
no rectangular field-of-view.
Table 9: Speed parameters

Minimum TR ms 40 40 12 18
Spin echo*
Minimum TR ms 8 10 4.4 3.6
2D gradient echo*
Minimum TR ms 25 10 4.2 3.3
3D gradient echo*
Minimum echo spacing ms 12 15 3.7 4.5
Turbo spin echo*
Minimum echo spacing ms 1.168 3.8 1.4 Data not
Echo planar imaging† supplied by
manufacturer
Minimum TE ms 160.4 166.5 NA 103
Single-shot diffusion imaging (max.
with b-value of 1000 mm2/s† 64×128,
b-value=998)
* For 256x256 matrix
†
For 128x128 matrix
Table 10: Resolution parameters

Minimum FOV mm 30 80 25 5
Maximum imaging matrix 512×512 1024 x 512 1024×1024 512×512
Minimum 2D slice thickness mm 1.4 2.0 0.4 1.7
Minimum 3D slice thickness mm 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.05
9
User information
Table 11: Sequence packages

Angiography Data not MR TOF Inflow TOF with Turbo contrast-
supplied by CE MRA SLINKY enhanced MRA
manufacturer CE MRA technique
PC MRA
BolusTrak
2D TOF triggering
Segmented and
2D/3D phase contrast
angiography
2D timing protocols
Diffusion Data not DWI DWI SE Advance turbo
supplied by Turbo DWI SE package: HASTE
manufacturer
Orthopaedic Data not Data not Comprehensive ortho Comprehensive ortho
supplied by supplied by package package in standard
manufacturer manufacturer configuration
Cardiac Data not Data not Cardiac Imaging Cardiac package:
supplied by supplied by Package special sequences
manufacturer manufacturer and scan protocols for
MR studies of the
heart
3D imaging Data not Data not Standard: 3D SE, 3D 3D DESS (for
supplied by supplied by TSE, 3D FFE, 3D B- orthopaedic imaging)
manufacturer manufacturer FFE ,3D-DFFE1st,3D-
DFFE 2nd,MRA 3D 3D CISS (for very high
FFE resolution studies eg:
inner-ear
examinations)
Others Data not Balanced Comprehensive Advanced fast imaging

supplied by SARGE clinical package techniques optimised
manufacturer Driven SENSE for breathholds and
Equilibrium ultrafast imaging:
Advanced TSE
FatSep True FISP, HASTE,
Fat/water selection
HASTE IR, Diffusion
MR Fluoro EPI sequence based on
EPI Panoramic Imaging HASTE, Single shot
package TSE
10
User information
Computer system
Table 12: Main computer system - architecture
Type RISC SUN 64bit RISC Hewlett Dual
Ultra SPARC 2 CPU Packard Pentium 4TM/
XW8200 Intel XeonTM
Operating system UNIX UNIX Windows XP Windows XP
CPU speed MHz 167x2, 400, 440 Dual CPU 3.6 2x 3600
440 GHz
Word length bit 64 64 32 32
Memory size MB 256 512 3096 2048
512 1024
Hard disk 9 34.6 73 36
Software GB (+36 for
database)
Hard disk Included above Included above Same HD 76
Images GB
Image capacity 30000 27000 750 000 ~ 190000
2562 images*
Archive drive MOD MOD 5.25” MOD CD-R
Size GB 2.3 2.6 9.1 650 MB
Image capacity 30000 17000 130000 ~ 4000
2562 images*
* Image capacity for uncompressed 2562 images
11
User information
Table 13: Main computer system – image processor

Manufacturer and type Mercury See note* As in previous Dual
MedCAM, table (no Pentium 4TM/
RISC SUN separate Intel XeonTM
ULTRA reconstruction
SPARK 2 computer)
Processing speed MHz 167x2, 400, See note* - 2x 3600
440
Word length bit 64 See note* - 32
Memory size MB 192-512 See note* - 1024
Bulk array memory size MB 128-512 See note* - 36000
(+ 4 x 36000
for raw data)
Reconstruction time for 2562 < 0.1 0.05 0.002 0.0028
image† sec
Transfer rate from host MB/s 26 40 Reconstruction No transfer
done in host time –
computer common bus
* AIRIS Mate features a host computer with daughter CPUs for each major function
† Reconstruction time for a true 256x256 matrix with no interpolation, no rectangular matrix, no rectangular
field-of-view
Table 14: Image display monitor

Screen size inches 21 21 19 18
Type (BW/colour) LCD colour Colour LCD Colour LCD colour
Matrix size 1280×1024 1280×1024 1280 x 1024 1280×1024
Bit depth bits 8 8 32 16
12
User information
Radio-frequency (RF) coils

The following definitions are provided to clarify the RF coils’ design and
components:
• # output channels: number of independent RF receiver channels

the RF coil plugs into.
• # elements for QD/CP: number of elements used for quadrature
(QD)/circularly polarised (CP) detection.
• # elements for LP: number of elements used for linearly polarised
(LP) detection.
Manufacturers have been asked to adopt the above definitions in the

description of their coils.
Table 15: Head and neck coils

Head coil
Name Head Head Synergy head Head array
Type QR QR PA R PA R
2 element
Dimensions cm 27x41 28×22×30 25×21.5x25 Data not
(dia × l) (h × w × l) (h x w x l) supplied by
manufacturer
Neck coil
Name QD C-spine Neck/joint Synergy neck coil Neck array
(medium, large) (medium, large)
Type QR LR PA R PA R
1 element
Dimensions cm 33×40×30.9 21 15.5 × 15.5 (me) 16 (me)
(h x w x l) (dia) 24 × 17.5 (la) 20 (la)
(h x w) (dia)
R=receive, T/R=transmit/receive, PA=phased array, Q=quadrature, L=linear, w=width, h=height, d=depth,
l=length, dia=diameter, circ=circumference, xs=extra small, sm=small, me=medium, la=large, xl=extra
large, xxl=extra extra large
13
User information
Table 15: Head and neck coils

Others
Name No other coil Head/Neck Synergy head & Head and Neck
PA neck Arrays can be
combined: no
extra coil
needed
Type - Q PA R 4 Channel PA R
PA R 3 element
Dimensions cm - 22.6×21 24×20×33 See individual
(w x l) (h x w x l ) coils
Name No other coil No other coil Synergy Brain No other coil

Coil
Type - - PA R -
Dimensions cm - - 19x21 -
(diaxl)
14
User information
Table 16: Body and spine coils

Transmitter
Name Integrated In-built Transmitter Integrated
transmit transmission integrated into transmit coil
pole face
Type T T T T
Dimensions cm 128x102.5 x51 Data not Data not supplied Data not
(l x w h) supplied by by manufacturer supplied by
manufacturer manufacturer
Body coils
Name Body flex Flexible body Synergy Body and spine
(medium, large, (small, body/spine coil array (small,
XL) medium, (small, medium, medium, large,
large, XL) large, XL) XL,XXL)
2 element
Dimensions cm 120 (me) 38×105 (sm) 26×36 (sm) 30x20.5 (sm)
150 (la) 38×120 (me) 31×42 (me) 36×25.5 (me)
200 (xl) 38×150 (la) 35×50 (la) 43.5×30.5 (la)
circumference 38×190 (xl) 35×62 (xl) (h x w) 50x30.5 (xl)
(dia × l) (internal w × h)
Spine coils
Name CTL array CTL array Synergy As above
body/spine coil No extra coil
required
Type PA Q R PA R PA R -
Dimensions cm 57.1x86.3 x41.2 40x104 Data not supplied -
(w x l x d) (w x l) by manufacturer
15
User information
Table 17: Extremity coils

Knee coil
Name Extremity Knee Synergy Extremity
extremity array (small,
large)
2 element
Dimensions cm 18.9x27 17.5×19 17×15 15.5×16×21
(dia x l) (w × h) (w × h) (sm)
20×21×21 (la)
(w×h×d)
Others
Name Wrist Extremity Synergy Shoulder
extremity array
small
Type L R (small, L R (small, PA R PA R
large) large) 2 element
Dimensions cm 8.8x11.5 (sm) 13.5x13.5 13×13 19.5
13.4x11.5 (la) (sm) (w × h) (internal
(dia x l) 17.3x22 (la) vertical
opening)
(w × h)
Name Shoulder array TMJ Synergy Wrist array
(small, large) shoulder coil
Type PA Q R LR PA R PA R
Dimensions cm 18x15.4x18.4 7 21 x 20 11.2x7.2x20
(sm) (dia) (h x w) (h x w x l)
18x16.5x21.8
(la)
(w × l × d)
Name Wrist array No other coil No other coil No other coil
Type PA Q R - - -
Dimensions cm 10.4x19x17 - - -
(w x l x d)
16
User information
Table 18: Breast imaging coils

Name Breast array Bilateral Synergy Can be done
mammo bilateral breast with BodySpine
coil
Type Q PA R LR 2 channel PA -
Dimensions cm 55.9 x 40.6 Data not 2 x 16 -
x 17.6 supplied by the (aperture)
manufacturer 56 x 53 x 20
(w × l × d)
(w × l × h)
Table 19: General purpose/other coils

Knee coil
Name 9 inch Wrist Flexible Multipurpose
6 inch multipurpose (sm, me, la)
coil (xs, sm,
me, la, xl, xxl)
Type LR QR LR LR
Dimensions cm 27x8 (9”) 11.8x6.4 40 (xs) 11 (sm)
19x2 (6”) (w x l) 45 (sm) 16 (me)
(w x l) 55 (me) 21 (la)
65 (la) (dia)
90 (xl)
136 (xxl)
(circ)
Others
Name Neuro vascular Shoulder TMJ No other coil
array
Type PA Q R Q R/PA R LR -
Dimensions cm 37.8x51.7x33.8 22x22.4 Data not -
(w x l x d) (w x l) supplied by
manufacturer
17
Details of assessment
Table 20 provides information on the open MRI systems included in the
technical evaluation. The data from the type-tested systems have been
published in previous evaluation reports unless otherwise stated. We ask that
all images be acquired without any pre-reconstruction or post-processing filters.
This is not possible for some manufacturers where pre-reconstruction filters are
part of the reconstruction process and cannot be switched off. In addition, some
manufacturers of low field systems recommend the use of post-processing
filters in clinical imaging to improve signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). These filters
however, may affect spatial resolution. Consequently, only unfiltered images are
analysed for SNR and resolution tests.
We aim to include new technical evaluation data for the GE, Hitachi and
Siemens systems in the next issue of this report.
Table 20: MR model abbreviation codes for evaluated open MRI systems
Manufacturer GE Hitachi Philips Siemens
Model Profile Airis Mate Panorama MAGNETOM
Concerto
Key GE-PRO HI-AIR PH-PAN SI-CON
Assessment date February 1998 November 2000 June 2005 July 2001
Gradient strength 10 mT/m 12 mT/m 21 mT/m 20 mT/m
Report number MDA/98/47 Not available Not available Not available

18
Quadrature head coil evaluation

Quadrature head coil: signal to noise ratio (SNR)
Scan conditions
The head coil signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) test is carried out using our standard
type-test protocols (spin-echo, TE=30 ms, TR=1000 ms, NSA=1, FOV=250 mm,
slice width=5 mm, Matrix=256 x 256, no loading annulus). The flood field test
object was placed at the centre of the coil and is imaged at the iso-centre in all
three planes. Two sequential images are taken for each plane and used to form
a subtracted image. Experimental conditions are shown in Table 21.
Table 21: Experimental conditions for quadrature head coil SNR test
System GE-PRO HI-AIR PH-PAN SI-CON
Bandwidth kHz ± 7.81 ± 15.00 ± 5.0 ± 10.24
Test object T01A-L T01A-L MAGFF-Loaded TO1A_S
Loading MAG-ANN None In test object In test object
Q phantom 328 183.3 54 166.78
Q head 386 139.5 60 167.75
Q factor 1.08 0.87 1.05 1.00
Analysis
The SNR is calculated from the signal mean of five regions of interest (ROI) in
one image and the standard deviation of five ROIs in the subtracted image. The
SNR values are normalised for voxel size, scan time, sampling bandwidth and
Q-factor.
Results
Results are presented in Table 22. Graph 1 presents a comparison of the
normalised SNR (NSNR) results.
Table 22: Quadrature head coil normalised SNR (NSNR) results

Transverse Sagittal Coronal Mean
GE-PRO 178 160 147 162
HI-AIR 221 212 196 210
PH-PAN 211 163 181 185
SI-CON 221 195 215 210
19
Graph 1: Comparison of head coil normalised SNR (mean of three planes)
HI-AIR
SI-CON
GE-PRO*
PH-PAN
0 50 100 150 200 250

Normalised SNR (NSNR)
*GE systems apply a pre-reconstruction Fermi filter as standard. This could not be switched off during this
type-testing.
20
Quadrature head coil: uniformity
Scan conditions
The head coil uniformity test is carried out using our standard type-test
protocols (as for the head coil SNR test). A flood field test object is placed at the
centre of the coil and is imaged at the iso-centre in all three imaging planes.
Analysis
Uniformity measurements are made in all three directions. The fractional
uniformity is calculated for each direction from the percentage of pixels that lie
within 10% of the mean value of a central ROI.
Results
The optimum value for uniformity is 1.00. The results for all three directions are
presented in Table 23 and Graph 2.
Table 23: Quadrature head coil fractional uniformity results

x-direction y-direction z-direction Mean ± SD*
GE-PRO 0.88 0.77 0.91 0.85 ± 0.07
HI-AIR 0.97 0.76 0.89 0.87 ± 0.10
PH-PAN 0.70 0.50 1.00 0.76 ± 0.19
SI-CON 0.73 0.43 0.81 0.65 ± 0.18
*Standard Deviation (SD) of 6 measurements (2 measurements per direction)
Graph 2: Comparison of head coil fractional uniformity
HI-AIR
GE-PRO
PH-PAN
SI-CON
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Fractional uniformity
21
Quadrature head coil: ghosting

Scan parameters
The head coil ghosting test is carried out using our standard type-test protocols
(four echo sequence TE=30 ms, NSA=1 and 2). The ghosting test object is
placed diagonally offset within the field of view and is imaged in the transverse
plane.
Analysis
Ghosting measurements are made from the four images acquired in each signal
average set. Ghosting is calculated as the ratio of the maximum ghost found in
the image (minus the background noise) to the signal x 100.
Results
The optimum value for ghosting is zero, hence the lower the ghosting, the better
the performance of the system. Table 24 shows the maximum ghosting for each
echo. Graph 3 and Graph 4 show comparisons of maximum ghosting for 1 and
2 NSA respectively.
Table 24: Maximum ghosting for 1 and 2 signal averages

Echo 1 Echo 2 Echo 3 Echo 4
Mean
30 ms 60 ms 90 ms 120 ms
NSA = 1
GE-PRO 0.24 0.07 0.47 0.64 0.36
HI-AIR 0.31 0.61 Not available Not available 0.46

PH-PAN 0.51 0.57 0.83 0.96 0.72
SI-CON 0.71 0.59 1.11 0.49 0.72
NSA = 2
GE-PRO 0.05 0.08 0.73 0.42 0.32
HI-AIR 0.38 0.46 Not available Not available 0.42

PH-PAN 0.43 0.38 0.60 0.61 0.50
SI-CON 1.65 0.94 0.97 0.91 1.12
22
Graph 3: Comparison of average ghosting for NSA=1
GE-PRO
HI-AIR
PH-PAN
SI-CON
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

ghosting (%)
The optimum value is 0.
Graph 4: Comparison of average ghosting for NSA=2
GE-PRO
HI-AIR
PH-PAN
SI-CON
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

ghosting (%)
The optimum value is 0.
23
Body coil evaluation

Body coil: signal to noise ratio (SNR)
Scan parameters
The body coil evaluation is performed using the body coil. The body coil SNR
test is carried out using our standard type-test protocols (see head coil SNR
test). The flood field test object is placed at the centre of the coil and is imaged
at the iso-centre in the transverse, sagittal and coronal planes. Two sequential
images are taken for each plane and used to form a subtracted image.
Experimental conditions are shown in Table 25.
Table 25: Experimental conditions for body coil SNR test

Body coil type OPEN Body Body coil Synergy Body Spine
coil medium Body/Spine Array coil
medium coil (medium)
Bandwidth kHz ± 7.81 ± 15.0 ± 5.0 ± 10.24
Test object TO1A_L TO1A_L MAGFF-Loaded TO1A_L
Loading MAG_ANN MAG_ANN In Test Object MAG_ANN
Q phantom 203.0 79.05 187.50 216.5
Q body 121.0 55.70 112.50 99.1
Q factor 0.77 0.84 0.77 0.68
Analysis
The SNR is calculated from the signal mean of five ROIs in one image and the
standard deviation of five ROIs in the subtracted image. The values obtained for
SNR are normalised for voxel size, scan time, sampling bandwidth and Q-
factor. Q measurements are presented in Table 25.
Results
The SNR results for the body coils of the evaluated systems are shown in Table
26 and Graph 5.
Table 26: Body coil normalised SNR (NSNR) results

Transverse Sagittal Coronal Mean
GE-PRO 93 87 95 92
HI-AIR 85 82 73 80
PH-PAN 98 87 89 91
SI-CON 83 79 80 81
24
Graph 5: Comparison of body coil normalised SNR (mean of three planes)
GE-PRO*
PH-PAN
SI-CON
HI-AIR
0 20 40 60 80 100
Normalised SNR (NSNR)
*GE systems apply a pre-reconstruction Fermi filter as standard. This could not be switched off during this
type-testing.
25
Body coil: uniformity

Scan conditions
The body coil uniformity test is carried out using our standard type-test
protocols (see body coil SNR test). The flood field test object is placed at the
centre of the coil and is imaged at the iso-centre in the transverse, sagittal and
coronal planes.
Analysis
Uniformity measurements are made in all three directions. The fractional
uniformity is calculated for each direction from the percentage of pixels that lie
within 10% of the mean value of a central ROI.
Results
The optimum value for uniformity is 1.00. The results are presented in Table 27.
Graph 6 gives a comparison of the measured fractional uniformity for open
systems.
Table 27: Body coil fractional uniformity results

GE-PRO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ± 0.01
HI-AIR 0.88 0.76 0.80 0.81 ± 0.06
PH-PAN 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 ± 0.05
SI-CON 0.81 0.92 0.79 0.84 ± 0.07
*Standard Deviation (SD) of 6 measurements (2 measurements per direction)
Graph 6: Comparison of body coil fractional uniformity

GE-PRO
PH-PAN
SI-CON
HI-AIR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Fractional uniformity
26
Spatial resolution
Scan conditions
The resolution tests are carried out using our standard type-test protocols (as
for the head coil SNR test). The resolution test object is placed at the centre of
the head coil. The test object contains a set of four angled Perspex MTF
(modulation transfer function) blocks. The image nominal pixel size of 0.98 mm
is defined by the FOV divided by the matrix size. The test object is scanned at
the iso-centre in the transverse, sagittal and coronal planes.
Analysis
The resolution is analysed using in-house resolution software which calculates
the 50% point on the MTF plot. This frequency is converted into pixel resolution.
Results
The optimum value for resolution is 0.98. Table 28 shows the results for the
mean spatial resolution in both the PE and FE directions for the open systems
tested. Graph 7 shows a comparison of the spatial resolution for the different
systems.
Table 28: Pixel dimension measurements (mm) for 256×256 matrix,

FOV=25 cm
Mean Mean
Mean ± SD*
(in PE direction) (in FE direction)
GE-PRO 1.08 1.14 1.11 ± 0.08
HI-AIR 1.04 1.04 1.04 ± 0.02
PH-PAN 1.02 1.03 1.02 ± 0.01
SI-CON 1.03 1.03 1.03 ± 0.03
*SD of 24 measurements (4 measurements per direction per plane)
27
Graph 7: Comparison of mean pixel dimension for 256×256 matrix,

FOV=25 cm†
PH-PAN
SI-CON
HI-AIR
GE-PRO*
0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15

pixel dimension (mm)
†Optimum pixel dimension value is 0.98mm

* GE systems apply a pre-reconstruction Fermi filter as standard. This could not be switched off during this
type-testing.
28
Geometric tests
Geometric linearity
Scan parameters
The geometric linearity tests are carried out using our standard type-test
protocols (as for the head coil SNR test, except FOV=256 mm). The geometry
test object is placed at the centre of the head coil and is imaged at the iso-
centre in transverse, sagittal and coronal planes.
Analysis
The linear distances are measured three times in each direction. These
measurements are converted from pixels to mm and compared to the actual
distance of 120 mm for linearity.
Results
Table 29 shows a comparison of the mean geometric linearity for the three
directions with different type-tested open systems. Graph 8 compares the mean
geometric linearity error.
Table 29: Geometric linearity for three directions

GE-PRO 119.1 119.1 119.1 119.1 ± 0.33
HI-AIR 120.3 119.7 119.8 119.9 ± 0.54
PH-PAN 120.3 120.7 121.0 120.7 ± 0.59
SI-CON 121.2 120.8 120.0 120.7 ± 0.69
*Standard Deviation (SD) from 18 measurements (6 measurements per direction)
Graph 8: Comparison of mean error in geometric linearity systems (mean

of three gradient directions).*
HI-AIR
SI-CON
PH-PAN
GE-PRO
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

linearity error (mm)
*The optimum value is 0 ± 1 mm. Systems are ranked in order of the absolute deviation from optimum.
29
Geometric distortion
Scan parameters
The geometric distortion tests are carried out using our standard type-test
protocols (as for the head coil SNR test, except FOV=256 mm). The geometry
test object is placed at the centre of the head coil and is imaged at the iso-
Analysis
Geometric distortion is measured as the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the
linear distance measurements in each direction. The CV indicates the degree of
variation of the distance measurements from one another. The coefficient of
variation is defined as:
standard deviation
CV = x 100%
mean
Results
The optimum value for the coefficient of variation is zero, hence the lower the
coefficient of variation, the lower the in-plane distortion and the better the
performance of the system. Table 30 shows a comparison between open
systems for the mean coefficient of variation in three gradient directions. Graph
9 presents the coefficient of variation as a measure of distortion for each
gradient direction.
Table 30: Distortion measurements (CV%) for three gradient directions

x-direction y-direction z-direction Mean
GE-PRO 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.17
HI-AIR 0.43 0.43 0.34 0.40
PH-PAN 0.43 0.68 0.00 0.37
SI-CON 0.34 0.34 0.53 0.40
30
Graph 9: Comparison of geometric distortion (CV%), mean of three

gradient directions)
GE-PRO
PH-PAN
HI-AIR
SI-CON
0 0.25 0.5
distortion (%)
31
Geometric distortion over large field of view

Scan parameters
The large field of view geometric distortion is assessed with the 380 mm
diameter test object. The test object is placed in the centre of the body coil and
the iso-centre of the magnet and imaged in the coronal plane (spin-echo,
TE=30 ms, TR=1000 ms, NSA=1, FOV=450 mm, slice width=5 mm, Matrix=256
x 256, bandwidth= ± 5 KHz). If the FOV and bandwidth values are unavailable,
another combination is used provided that FOV/bandwidth=9 as keeping the
ratio FOV/ bandwidth constant provides comparative results.
Analysis
Distortion is assumed to be minimal for the nine disks within the central Region
of Interest (ROI) 1, as shown in Figure 2. The positions of these disks are used
to calculate the actual pixel size. The predicted positions of the remaining 36
disks can then be calculated. The distortion is defined as the difference
between the predicted and actual disk positions in both x and y directions within
ROI 2 and ROI 3. ROI 2 consists of the 16 disks around ROI 1 whilst ROI 3 is
defined as the 25 disks around the edge of the phantom.
Figure 2:Cross-sectional image of the Mag-GEOM-Large test object with

the three regions of interest (ROIs) used in the distortion calculations
(superimposed).
Results
The optimum value for distortion is zero, hence the lower the distortion the
better the performance of the system. Table 31 shows the results for the
evaluation on the PH-PAN system. No results are available from systems
evaluated before 2005. Graph 10 and Graph 11 present the distortion results in
each ROI.
32
Table 31: Large FOV distortion measurements (in mm) for x and y
directions*
x-direction y-direction Mean
ROI 2
PH-PAN 3.43 (2.69) 3.12 (2.99) 3.27 (2.84)
ROI 3
PH-PAN 6.08 (4.73) 7.26 (5.27) 6.67 (5.00)
*Values in brackets correspond to measurements taken on images with geometric correction switched on.
Graph 10: Comparison of large FOV distortion measurements for x and y

directions in the ROI 2
with geometric
correction
without geometric
correction
PH-PAN
0 2 4 6 8 10
distortion (mm)
Graph 11: Comparison of large FOV distortion measurements for x and y

directions in the ROI 3
with geometric
correction
without geometric
correction
PH-PAN
0 2 4 6 8 10
distortion (mm)
33
Slice profile and slice width

Scan parameters
The slice width and slice profile tests are carried out using our standard type-
test protocols (as for the head coil SNR test with SW = 3 and 5 mm). The
geometry object is placed at the centre of the coil and is imaged at the iso-
Analysis
The slice width is measured from the full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) of the
slice intensity profile.
Results
Table 32 shows a comparison between open systems for the mean measured
slice width for three imaging planes. Graph 12 and Graph 13 present a
comparison of the error in the measured slice width.
Table 32: Measured slice widths (mm)

Transverse Sagittal Coronal Mean ± SD*
3 mm test
GE-PRO 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.3 ± 0.3
HI-AIR 2.9 3.5 3.7 3.3 ± 0.4
PH-PAN 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.1 ± 0.1
SI-CON 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.3 ± 0.2
5 mm test
GE-PRO 5.2 5.2 6.0 5.5 ± 0.5
HI-AIR 4.6 5.8 6.1 5.5 ± 0.8
PH-PAN 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.0 ± 0.1
SI-CON 4.9 5.5 5.2 5.2 ± 0.3
*Standard deviation (SD) of 12 measurements (4 measurements per plane)
34
Graph 12: Comparison of measured slice widths for a nominal slice width
of 3 mm (mean of three planes)*
PH-PAN
SI-CON
HI-AIR
GE-PRO
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5

slice width error (mm)
* The optimum value is 0 ± 0.3 mm. Systems are ranked in order of the absolute deviation from optimum.
Graph 13: Comparison of measured slice widths for a nominal slice width
of 5 mm (mean of three planes)†
PH-PAN *
SI-CON
HI-AIR
GE-PRO
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5

slice width error (mm)
†
The optimum value is 0 ± 0.5 mm. Systems are ranked in order of the absolute deviation from optimum.
* The system has the optimum error value of 0 mm.
35
Imaging speed measurements

Two- and three-dimensional imaging speed
Scan conditions
The sequences and parameters used for evaluating 2D and 3D imaging speed
are presented in the Appendix.
Analysis
Both the 2D and 3D imaging speed tests require a fixed volume to be acquired
using 2D and 3D fast imaging sequences. The aim of these tests is to measure
data acquisition speed in voxels/second. The voxel size is defined by the image
matrix and the number of slices in the fixed range. Both the 2D and 3D imaging
speed tests allow for the use of parallel imaging techniques.
Imaging speed has been calculated as the ratio of imaged voxels to total scan
time. The total scan time is the time displayed by the scanner, rather than the
number of phase-encoding steps × repetition time (TR).
Results
The numerical results of the 2D and 3D imaging speed tests are presented in
the Appendix. No results are available for Fast Spin Echo (FSE) and Echo
Planar Imaging (EPI) sequences for systems evaluated before 2005. Graph 14
and Graph 15 show a comparison of 2D imaging speed with Gradient Echo
(GRE), EPI and FSE sequences, respectively. Graph 16 and Graph 17 show a
comparison of 3D imaging speed with GRE and FSE sequences, respectively.
36
Graph 14. Comparison of 2D imaging speed with GRE-type sequences
PH-PAN
SI-CON
GE-PRO
HI-AIR
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

imaging speed
Graph 15. Comparison of 2D imaging speed with EPI and FSE-type

sequences.*
FSE EPI
PH-PAN
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

imaging speed
*No results are available for FSE and EPI-type 2D sequences for systems evaluated before 2005.
37
Graph 16. Comparison of 3D imaging speed with GRE-type sequences.
PH-PAN
SI-CON
GE-PRO
HI-AIR
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

imaging speed
Graph 17. Comparison of 3D imaging speed with FSE-type sequences.*

PH-PAN
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

imaging speed
*No results are available for FSE-type 3D sequences for systems evaluated before 2005.
38
Acoustic noise
The acoustic noise levels measured in this assessment are provided for
indication only. Variations in factors such as room acoustics may mean that
similar noise levels may not be reproduced at a different site - even with an
identical pulse sequence. Acoustic noise levels are given in terms of the
continuous equivalent level, LAEQ, which is A-weighted root-mean-square sound
pressure level (SPL) averaged over the measurement period of 1 minute. The
relevant safety levels follow.
Patients and volunteers

IEC-60601-2-33
If the scanner can exceed 99 dB(A) then an instruction for the use of hearing
protection must be included in the manufacturer’s instructions for use.
MHRA
Hearing protection is recommended for all patients even when exposure is less
than 99 dB(A). Where sites can demonstrate noise levels significantly below 85
dB(A) then this requirement may be relaxed. Please refer to Guidelines for
Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Equipment in Clinical Use: Medical Devices
Agency 2002.
Staff
NOISE AT WORK REGULATIONS 1989 (UK)
Employers have legal duty to protect the hearing of their employees. Hearing
protection must be available for workers exposed to 85 dB(A) and must be worn
if levels exceed 90 dB(A). Employers are responsible for performing risk
assessments for employees exposed to noise. This would include staff present
in the MR scan room during imaging.
EU DIRECTIVE 2003/10/EC
This directive becomes effective in the UK in 2006. Compared to the regulations
above action levels will be reduced by 5 dB(A). Substitution and control of noisy
equipment must be prioritised above the use of hearing protection.
Table 33 displays clinical pulse sequences designed to be run on all tested

systems to provide comparative information about acoustic noise. The acoustic
noise levels for these sequences are displayed in Table 34. Graph 18 displays
comparatively the LAEQ levels for the 3DGE sequence. Acoustic noise levels are
given in terms of the continuous equivalent level, LAEQ. All values are on the A-
weighted scale.
39
Table 33. Clinical pulse sequences for comparative acoustic noise

Flip
Pulse Sequence TE TR Matrix NSA FOV SW Slices
angle
SE 15 450 256×256 1 320 1 4 10
FSE (ETL = 4) 15 4000 256×256 1 320 1 4 10
3D-GRE 9 23 160×256 1 170 1 1 10
Table 34. Acoustic noise levels for comparative pulse sequences (LAEQ)
Pulse sequence with acoustic noise level dB(A)
System SE FSE 3D-GRE
GE-PRO* 74.2 70.6 79.7
HI-AIR 76.1 68.1 77.0
†
PH-PAN 88.6 80.3 (76.5) 86.3 (84.5)†
SI-CON## 78.2 67.0 78.4
*TR=30 ms for 3DGE sequence
†Value in brackets was measured with SofTone on
##TE=14, ETL=3 fro FSE sequence; TE=9.02, slices=16 for 3DGE sequence
Graph 18. Acoustic noise levels for 3D-GRE sequences (LAEQ)
HI-AIR
SI-CON
GE-PRO
with softone
PH-PAN
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Continuous equivalent level, LAeq, db(A)
40
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support of GE, Hitachi, Philips and Siemens
during this evaluation. In particular we would like to thank GE, Hitachi, Mr Jari
Erkkila, Dr Thomas Andreae from Philips, and Siemens for their expert
assistance during the technical tests.
41
References
Lerski R, De Wilde J, Boyce D, Ridgway J. (1998). “Quality-control in magnetic

resonance imaging” (IPEM report No. 80). York, UK, ISBN 0 904181 901
Report 05097: 0.2T-0.23T open MRI systems issue
42
Appendix
Manufacturers’ comments
GE
The manufacturer had no additional comments.
Hitachi
Philips
Siemens
Report 05097: 0.2T-0.23T open MRI systems issue
43
Appendix
2D imaging speed
2D imaging speed: sequence parameters
Table 35: Standard imaging protocol for 2D imaging speed evaluation.
Parameter Standard protocol
Sequence Gradient echo (GRE), echo planar imaging
(EPI), fast spin echo (FSE)
TE (ms) Manufacturer’s choice
TR (ms) Manufacturer’s choice
Flip angle (degrees) Manufacturer’s choice
NSA Manufacturer’s choice
Bandwidth Manufacturer’s choice
Echo train length (where applicable) Manufacturer’s choice
FOV (mm) 250 x 250
Matrix (PE x FE) 256 x 256
Slice width (mm) <5
Range (mm) I To equal 200
Contiguous slices II Maximise
Scan time (min:sec) III Minimise
The Roman numerals I, II and III represent the order in which the sequence parameters are set.
44
Appendix
Table 36: Scan parameters for 2D imaging speed evaluation on the GE

Profile MRI system.
Sequence FGRE
TE (ms) 5
TR (ms) 1100
Flip angle (degrees) 90
NSA 1
Bandwidth Not measured
Echo train length (where applicable) Not applicable
FOV (mm) 250 x 250
Slice width (mm) 3.00
Range (mm) I 207
Contiguous slices II 69
Scan time (min:sec) III 4:50
45
Appendix
Table 37: Scan parameters for 2D imaging speed evaluation on the Hitachi
Airis Mate MRI system.
Sequence SARGE
TE (ms) 7.5
TR (ms) 740
NSA 1
FOV (mm) 250 x 250
Slice width (mm) 5
Range (mm) I 200
Table 38: Scan parameters for 2D imaging speed evaluation on the Philips
Panorama MRI system.
Sequence T1-TFE2D TSEFAST2D IR-EPI
TE (ms) 3.8 192 117
TR (ms) 7.6 2225.3 13490
Flip angle (degrees) 15 90 90
NSA 1 1 1
Bandwidth 578.7Hz/px 385.8Hz/px 375.9Hz/px
Echo train length (where applicable) Not applicable 256 64
FOV (mm) 250 x 250 250 x 250 250 x 250
Matrix (PE x FE) 256 x 256 256 x 256 256 x 256
Slice width (mm) 5 5 5
Range (mm) I 200 200 200
Contiguous slices II 40 48 40
Scan time (min:sec) III 1:05 1:29 0:54
46
Appendix
Table 39: Scan parameters for 2D imaging speed evaluation on the

Siemens MAGNETOM Concerto MRI system.
Sequence TRUE-FISP
TE (ms) 3.47
TR (ms) 6.93
NSA 1
Bandwidth 488 Hz/px
FOV (mm) 250 x 250
Slice width (mm) 4
Range (mm) I 200
2D imaging speed: results

Table 40: 2D imaging speed results for GRE-type sequences.
Imaging speed 15593 13870 40330 36009
(voxels per second)
Table 41: 2D imaging speed results for EPI-type sequences.*


Imaging speed No test data No test data 48545 No test data
(voxels per second)
*No results are available for EPI-type 2D sequences for systems evaluated before 2005.
Table 42: 2D imaging speed results for FSE-type sequences.*

(voxels per second)
47
Appendix
3D imaging speed
3D imaging speed: sequence parameters
Table 43: Standard imaging protocol for 3D imaging speed evaluation
Sequence Gradient echo (GRE), fast spin echo (FSE)
TE (ms) Manufacturer’s choice
TR (ms) Manufacturer’s choice
Flip angle (degrees) Manufacturer’s choice
NSA Manufacturer’s choice
Bandwidth Manufacturer’s choice
Echo train length (where applicable) Manufacturer’s choice
FOV (mm) 250 × 250
Matrix (PE x FE) 128 × 128
Slice width (mm) <5
Range (mm) I 250 × 250 x To equal 200
Contiguous slices II Maximise
Scan time (min:sec) III Minimise
Table 44: Scan parameters for 3D imaging speed evaluation on the GE

Profile MRI system
Sequence FGRE
TE (ms) 5.4
TR (ms) 23
NSA 1
FOV (mm) 250 × 250
Range (mm) I 250 × 250 × 198.4
48
Appendix
Table 45: Scan parameters for 3D imaging speed evaluation on the Hitachi
Airis Mate MRI system
Sequence SARGE
TE (ms) 7.9
TR (ms) 25
NSA 1
FOV (mm) 250 × 250
Range (mm) I 250 × 250 × 200
Table 46: Scan parameters for 3D imaging speed evaluation on the Philips
Panorama MRI system
Sequence T1-FFE3D TSE
TE (ms) 2 192
TR (ms) 4 2225.3
Flip angle (degrees) 20 90
NSA 1 1
Bandwidth 1041.7 Hz/px 500 Hz/px
Echo train length (where applicable) Not applicable 64
FOV (mm) 250 × 250 250 × 250
Matrix (PE x FE) 128 × 128 128 × 128
Slice width (mm) 1.4 4.2
Range (mm) I 250 × 250 × 201.6 250 × 250 × 201.6
Contiguous slices II 144 48
Scan time (min:sec) III 1:38 1:29
49
Appendix
Table 47: Scan parameters for 3D imaging speed evaluation on the

Siemens MAGNETOM Concerto MRI system
Sequence Flash3DFAST
TE (ms) 7.44
TR (ms) 15
NSA 1
Bandwidth 130 Hz/px
FOV (mm) 250 × 250
Range (mm) I 250 × 250 × 199.68
3D imaging speed: results

Table 48: 3D imaging speed results for GRE-type sequences
Imaging speed 5263 5120 24074 8508
(voxels per second)
Table 49: 3D imaging speed results for FSE-type sequences*


(voxels per second) available available available
50
View publication stats

All Open MRI 02 - 023T - Comparison - Report - 05097 - 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

All Open MRI 02 - 023T - Comparison - Report - 05097 - 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Technical Report · December 2005

Ioannis Delakis Caroline Renaud

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

www.pasa.nhs.uk/cep Health and social care working together

Meanwhile, newly published evaluation reports will continue to be e-mailed to subscribers

How to obtain evaluation publications

Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing

Tel: 020 7972 6080

Visit our website for a comprehensive list of publications, details of forthcoming

Comparative report of four

David Price, Ioannis Delakis, Caroline Renaud

Tel: 020 7594 6305

For more information on MagNET visit www.magnet-mri.org.

© Crown Copyright 2005

Purpose of this report

This report combines system specifications, safety and technical evaluation

The aim of the technical assessment is to obtain type-test measurements of

system specifications, system information and safety evaluation, and the

Table 1. 0.2T – 0.23T Open MRI systems

Figure 1. Evaluated open systems

GE Profile Hitachi Airis Mate

Philips Panorama Siemens MAGNETOM Concerto

Type Permanent Permanent Resistive Permanent

Table 3: Shimming details

Number of independent 4 Data not 6 3 (linear

Table 4: Patient comfort details

Table 5: Installation details

magnet only tonnes 8.9 7.5 13.1 11.3

Table 6: Electronics cabinets

Table 9: Speed parameters

Table 10: Resolution parameters

Table 11: Sequence packages

Others Data not Balanced Comprehensive Advanced fast imaging

Table 13: Main computer system – image processor

Table 14: Image display monitor

Bit depth bits 8 8 32 16

Radio-frequency (RF) coils

• # output channels: number of independent RF receiver channels

Manufacturers have been asked to adopt the above definitions in the

Table 15: Head and neck coils

Table 15: Head and neck coils

Name No other coil No other coil Synergy Brain No other coil

Table 16: Body and spine coils

Table 17: Extremity coils

Table 18: Breast imaging coils

Table 19: General purpose/other coils

Gradient strength 10 mT/m 12 mT/m 21 mT/m 20 mT/m

Report number MDA/98/47 Not available Not available Not available

Quadrature head coil evaluation

Table 22: Quadrature head coil normalised SNR (NSNR) results

Graph 1: Comparison of head coil normalised SNR (mean of three planes)

0 50 100 150 200 250

Quadrature head coil: uniformity

Table 23: Quadrature head coil fractional uniformity results

Graph 2: Comparison of head coil fractional uniformity

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Quadrature head coil: ghosting

Table 24: Maximum ghosting for 1 and 2 signal averages

GE-PRO 0.24 0.07 0.47 0.64 0.36

HI-AIR 0.31 0.61 Not available Not available 0.46

GE-PRO 0.05 0.08 0.73 0.42 0.32