Comparison of the colon with T1 breath-hold vs T1 free-breathing—A retrospective fetal MRI study

Abstract

ObjectivesFetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an increasingly important role in the prenatal diagnosis of gastrointestinal abnormalities. During gestation, the bowel develops T1-weighted hyperintensity due to meconium formation. Currently used T1-weighted sequences are performed in maternal breath-hold (BH) technique, which may take up to 20 s. The free-breathing (FB) T1-weighted 3D radial VIBE (volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination) sequence requires no breath-hold, improving patient comfort. This study aimed to address how well the FB acquisition technique can visualize large bowel structures compared to the routinely performed breath-hold sequence. MethodsForty-seven fetal MRI studies between 21 and 36 weeks of gestation without abdominal pathologies on prenatal MRI and ultrasound were included. All fetal scans were performed using a Philips Ingenia 1.5 T MRI. Coronal T1-weighted BH and FB sequences without fat suppression were compared. The following acquisition parameters were used (T1, FB): resolution 1.137 mm, 1.004 mm; matrix size 288 × 288, 448 × 448; FOV 328 mm, 450 mm; TR 81−132 ms, 3.47 ms; TE 4.6 ms, 1.47 ms. Due to the necessity of the breath-hold the duration of the sequence could not exceed 20 s (mean duration of the T1-weighted BH sequence 15.17 s, and mean duration of the FB sequence 26.42 s). In all examined fetuses the following structures were evaluated with respect to their visibility (0-not visible, 1-partially visible, 2-clearly visible): rectum, sigmoid, descending, transverse and ascending colon, cecum. Furthermore, motion artifacts were assessed (0-none, 1-intermediate, 2-severe motion artifacts), and the signal intensity (SI) ratio between maternal fat and fetal rectum SI was calculated. ResultsNo significant differences in the visibility of sigmoid and colon between BH and FB were detected, only the cecum could be seen slightly better (in 29.8 % of cases) using BH technique. Motion artifacts were similar between BH and FB. There was a non-significant SI difference (p = 0.68) in the rectum, with a higher SI in the BH sequence. ConclusionsThe FB acquisition technique compared to T1 using BH is equal regarding visibility of bowel structures and artifacts. Due to non-inferiority to the BH technique, the FB sequence is a good alternative in cases where BH cannot be performed. As the FB sequence further allows for thinner slices with a good signal, even small bowel loops may be visualized.