Comparison of Pulse Sequences of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Optimization of Timing and Image Quality

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Department of Physics, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Pakistan

2 Mathematics Department, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Pakistan

3 Department of Basic Sciences,UET,Taxila Pakistan.


Introduction: The present study aimed to three frequently used pulse sequences of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess the image quality of theses pulse sequences at short acquisition time.
Material and Methods: For the purpose of study two tissue equivalent gels were prepared. One gel was made from Polysaccharide and Agarose, whereas second gel was obtained from Ferrous Benzoic Xylenol Orange (FBX) which is tissue equivalent material. 6MV photons were used to irradiate FBX gel from linear accelerator with 25 Gray dose. Imaging parameters are performed in repetition time (TR) for experimental variations. The quantitative analysis included contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal to noise ratio (SNR).
Results: As evidenced by obtained results at 1.5 Tesla, Fast Spin Echo (FSE) and Fast Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR) were most comparable in SNR although, acquisition time of FSE is 62%, 9 %, and 15% less than FLAIR at different values of 4000ms, 4200ms and 4600ms of TR. CNR of Conventional Spin Echo (CSE) was 143% and 93% better than FSE and FLAIR respectively. The time difference between CSE and FSE was 6 min and 34 sec while this difference was 6 min and 43 sec between CSE and FLAIR.
Conclusion: FSE and FLAIR produced optimal image quality for many tissues. Their reduced acquisition time could make them perfect option for patients who cannot tolerate longer imaging time. Nonetheless long acquisition time cannot undervalue importance of CSE since it has yielded significantly higher contrast and SNR in T2-weighted images among other pulse sequences of MRI.


Main Subjects


    1. Katarzyna K, Monika BF.Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Pol J Radiol. 2015; 80: 93-106.
    2. Morelli JN, Runge VM, Ai F, Attenberger U, Vu L, Schmeets SH, et al.An. image-based approach to understanding the physics of MR artifacts.Radiographics. 2011; 31: 849-66.
    3. Honda E, Sasaki T, Simms FC, Maruyama K. An optimized fast protocol for magnetic resonance imaging of the temporomandibular joint.Dentomaxillofacial. Radiology. 2001; 30: 126-130.
    4. Tsao J. Ultrafast imaging: principles, pitfalls, solutions, and applications. J MagnReson Imaging. 2010; 32(2): 252-66.
    5. Belinda Meng, Umi N, Bee K, Ibrahim S. A framework of MRI fat suppressed imaging fusion system for femur abnormality analysis. Procedia Computer Science. 2015; 60:808 – 817.
    6. Mekle R, Laine AF, Wu EX. Combined MR data acquisition of multicontrast images using variable acquisition parameters and K-space data sharing. IEEE Trans Med Imaging .2003; 22(7):806-23.
    7. Augui J, Vignaux O, Argaud C, Coste J, Gouya H, Legmann P. Liver: T2-weighted MR Imaging with breath-hold fast-recovery optimized fast spin-Echo compared with breath-hold half-fourier and non–breath-hold respiratory-triggered fast spin-echo pulse sequences.. Radiology.2002; 223: 853-859.
    8. Naima A, Afzal M, Yousaf M, Arshad J. Comparison amongst pulse sequences and imaging parameters for enhanced CNR in T1, T2-weighted study of MRI. J Pak Med Assoc .2017; 67: 225-232.
    9. Mokhtar M Zeineb T, Mouna C, Fethi L. Comparison of 3D MR imaging sequences in knee articular cartilage at 1.5 T. Biomedical Research. 2018; 29 (14): 2963-2970.
    10. Westbrook C, Kaut C, Talbot J. MRI in Practice. 4th ed.Chicester: Wiley, John & SonsLtd ,2011.
    11. Cheng L, Jeremy F M, Hamidreza S R, Hee KS,  Felix W W. Comparison of optimized soft-tissue suppression schemes for ultra-short echo time (UTE) MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2012 Sep; 68(3): 680–689.
    12. Zviniene, K, Zaboriene, I, Basevicius, A, Jurkiene, N, Barauskas, G, Pundzius, J. Comparative diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of hepatic hemangiomas. Medicina.2010; 46: 329.
    13. Malcius, D, Jonkus, M, Kuprionis, G, Maleckas, A, MonastyreckienÄ—, E, Uktveris, R, et al.The accuracy of different imaging techniques in diagnosis of acute hematogenous. Medicina .2009; 45: 624.
    14. Ali CO,  Ute L, Lena MO, Frank J R, Michael B. Comparison of ultrashort  echo time sequences for MRI of an ancient mummified human hand. MagnReson Med. 2016; 75: 701–708.
    15. Cheng L, Jeremy FM, Hamidreza SR, Hee KS,Felix W. Comparison of optimized soft-tissue suppression schemes for ultra-short echo time (UTE) MRI.MagnReson Med. 2012; 68 (3): 680–689. 
    16. Rahmer J, Blume U, Bornert P. Selective 3D ultrashort TE imaging: comparison of dual-echoacquisition and magnetization preparation for improving short-T 2 contrast. MAGMA. 2007; 20 (2): 83-92.
    17. Walker PM,  Balmer C, Ablett S, LerskiR A. A test material for tissue characterisation and system calibration in MRI.Physics in Medicine & Biology.1989; 34: 5-22.
    18. Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. MHRA 04133 Siemens MAGNETOM Avanto 1.5 T. January 2005.
    19. Kelly RG, Jordan KJ, Battista JJ. Optical CT reconstruction of 3D dose distributions using the ferrous-benzoic-xylenol (FBX) gel dosimeter. Med Phys. 1998; 25(9):1741-50.
    20. Aalia N, Afzal M, Saeed.AB. Effects of variation of MRI parameters on signal homogeneity: A qualitative analysis for ferrous benzoic xylenol orange gel. J Pak Med Assoc 2010;60(6): 470-473.
    21. Afzal M, Lerski RA. Effect of concentration of ferrous ions on zero dose T1 value of dosimeter system. JP & App Sc. 2000; 19: 71-3.
    22. Carneiro AA, Vilela GR, de Araujo D, Baffa O. MRI relaxometry: methods and applications. Braz. J Phys. 2006; 36: 9-15.
    23. Hashemi R H,Bradley W G.; Lisanti C J. MRI The Basics. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003.
    24. Low R N, Francis I R, Sigeti J S,Foot K F. Abdominal MR imaging: comparison of T2-weighted fast conventional spin–echo, and contrast-enhanced fast multiplanar spoiled gradient-recalled imaging. Radiology. 1993; 186: 803-811.
    25. Siewert B, Muller M F, Foley M, Wielopolski P A, Finn J P. Fast MR imaging of the liver: quantative comparison of techniques. Radiology. 1994; 193: 37-42.
    26. Coene B De, Hajnal J V ,  Gatehouse P , Longmore D B ,  White S J , Oatridge A ,  et al. MR of the brain using fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) pulse sequences. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 1992; 13 (6): 1555-1564.
Volume 17, Issue 6
November and December 2020
Pages 350-358
  • Receive Date: 21 February 2019
  • Revise Date: 29 June 2019
  • Accept Date: 04 September 2019