What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to compare the diagnostic reliability and time efficiency of bilateral 3D STIR with unilateral 2D Dixon in imaging the brachial plexus.

January 20, 2026Open Access

Magnetic Resonance Neurography of the Brachial Plexus at 1.5 T: Diagnostic Reliability and Time Efficiency of Bilateral Ultra‐Fast 3D STIR vs. Unilateral 2D Dixon

Key Points

This study aims to compare the diagnostic reliability and time efficiency of bilateral 3D STIR with unilateral 2D Dixon in imaging the brachial plexus.
Retrospective collection of images from both healthy and pathologic cases.
Blind comparison of two imaging sequences by three raters.
Assessment of image quality, interpretability, and diagnostic accuracy against final reports.
2D Dixon showed better signal intensity and contrast ratios with p-values indicating statistical significance.
3D STIR had superior noise intensity and vascular suppression metrics.
Diagnostic accuracy was comparable between 3D STIR (79.6%) and 2D Dixon (78.7%).
Time efficiency favored 3D STIR with a 46% reduction in acquisition time.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Recent technological advancements may now allow shorter reliable magnetic resonance neurography (MRN) scans of the brachial plexus (BP) even at 1.5 T. The objective of this study was to compare ultra‐fast bilateral coronal 3D T2w TSE STIR (3D‐IR) with unilateral sagittal 2D T2w TSE Dixon (2D‐DX) in terms of image quality, diagnostic reliability, and time efficiency for BP MRN at 1.5 T. Free‐breathing 3D‐IR and 2D‐DX images acquired at 1.5 T were retrospectively collected from an equal number of healthy and pathologic cases and blindly compared by three raters. Pediatric cases, different acquisition methods, and low‐quality scans were excluded. Image quality was assessed objectively and subjectively. Image interpretability was assessed for each BP component. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated against final radiologic reports. Inter‐rater agreement was calculated. The MRN scans of 72 BP from 36 patients (13 females, 50.3 ± 17.6 y) were included. 2D‐DX performed better for signal intensity (all p < 0.001), nerve‐to‐muscle contrast ratio ( p = 0.016), signal‐ and contrast‐to‐noise ratios (all p < 0.001), sharpness of C6 ( p = 0.001) and MT ( p = 0.004), general depiction of nerves ( p = 0.007), and inter‐rater agreement, while 3D‐IR was superior for noise intensity ( p < 0.001), nerve‐to‐fat contrast ratio ( p = 0.024) and vascular suppression ( p < 0.001). Sharpness of the remaining nerves, overall neurographic quality, resistance to motion artifacts, nerve identifiability, and image interpretability were comparable between the two sequences. Diagnostic accuracy was similar for both techniques (3D‐IR: 79.6%; 2D‐DX: 78.7%), although bilateral coverage via 3D‐IR required 46% of the acquisition time compared to 2D‐DX (4′30″ vs. 8′20″). According to these results, 3D STIR seems a viable alternative to 2D Dixon for bilateral BP MRN at 1.5 T, offering a significant time advantage without compromising diagnostic reliability. A full‐3D abbreviated protocol supported by time‐efficient breathing control and advanced reconstruction tools could further optimize 1.5‐T BP MRN workflows.

Read Full Paperexternally

اسأل الذكاء الاصطناعي

Bookmark

View Full Paper