Mass Screening for Retrocochlear Disorders: Low-Field-Strength (0.2-T) versus High-Field-Strength (1.5-T) MR Imaging

References

1. ↵
   Armington WG, Harnsberger HR, Smoker WRK, Osborn AG. Normal and diseased acoustic pathway: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology 1988;167:509–515

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. ↵
   Davidson HC. Imaging evaluation of sensorineural hearing loss. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2001;22:229–249

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. ↵
   Allen RW, Harnsberger HR, Shelton C, et al. Low-cost high-resolution Fast spin-echo MR of acoustic schwannoma: an alternative to enhanced conventional spin-echo MR? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996;17:1205–1210

   Abstract
4. Enzmann DR, O’Donohue J. Optimizing MR imaging for detecting small tumors in the cerebellopontine angle and internal auditory canal. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1987;8:99–106

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. ↵
   Stuckey SL, Harris AJ, Mannolini SM. Detection of acoustic schwannoma: use of constructive interference in steady state three-dimensional MR. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996;17:1219–1225

   Abstract
6. ↵
   Jackler RK. Cost-effective screening for acoustic neuroma with unenhanced MR: a clinician’s perspective. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996;17:1226–1228

   PubMed
7. ↵
   Jackler R. Acoustic neuroma (vestibular schwannoma). In: Jackler R, Brackmann DE, eds. Neurotology. St Louis, Mo: Mosby-Year Book;1994 :729–785
8. ↵
   Fukui MB, Weissman JL, Curtin HD, Kanal E. T2-weighted MR characteristics of internal auditory canal masses. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996;17:1211–1218

   Abstract
9. ↵
   Salzman KL, Davidson HC, Harnsberger HR, et al. Dumbbell schwannomas of the internal auditory canal. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;23:1368–1376
10. ↵
    Dubrulle F, Ernst O, Vincent C, Lejeune JP, Vaneecloo FM, Lemaitre L. Cochlear fossa enhancement at MR evaluation of vestibular schwannoma: correlation with success at hearing preservation surgery. Radiology 2000;215:458–462

    PubMed
11. ↵
    Cotten A, Delfaut E, Demondion X, et al. MR imaging of the knee at 0.2 and 1.5 T: correlation with surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1093–1097

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. Gehl HB, Lorch H, Amblank OB, Engerhoff B, Weiss HD. Comparative magnetic resonance imaging of renal space-occupying lesions with a high and low field MRI system. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1998;169:484–489

    PubMed
13. Loew R, Kreitner KF, Runkel M, Zoellner J, Thelen M. MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0.2 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) imaging. Eur Radiol 2000;10:989–996

    CrossRefPubMed
14. ↵
    Tung GA, Entzian D, Green A, Brody JM. High-field and low-field MR imaging of superior glenoid labral tears and associated tendon injuries. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1107–1114

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. ↵
    Parizel PM, Dijkstra H, Geenen G, et al. Low field versus high field MR imaging of the knee: a comparison of signal behavior and diagnostic performance. Eur J Radiol 1995;19:132–138

    CrossRefPubMed
16. Rand T, Imhof H, Turetschek K, et al. Comparison of low field (0.2T) and high field (1.5T) MR imaging in the differentiation of torned from intact menisci. Eur J Radiol 1999;30:22–27

    PubMed
17. Kreitner KF, Hansen M, Schadmand-Fischer S, Krummenauer F, Runkel M. Low-field MRI of the knee joint: results of a prospective, arthroscopically controlled study. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1999;17:35–40
18. ↵
    Woertler K, Strothmann M, Tombach B, Reimer P. Detection of articular cartilage lesions: experimental evaluation of low- and high-field-strength MR imaging at 0.18 and 1.0 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;11:678–685

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science