Diagnostic Performance of a Metasurface Coil Compared With a Commercial 12‐Channel Coil for Knee MRI at 1. 5 T

{"BACKGROUND:":[0],"Knee":[1],"MRI":[2],"image":[3,115,127,220,301],"quality":[4,128,221,302],"depends":[5],"largely":[6],"on":[7,230,241],"the":[8,23,179,227,258,308],"radiofrequency":[9],"coil;":[10],"metasurfaces":[11],"offer":[12],"a":[13,30,94,103],"new":[14],"approach":[15],"to":[16,307],"improving":[17],"coil":[18,32,97,229,295,312],"performance.":[19],"PURPOSE:":[20],"To":[21],"evaluate":[22],"imaging":[24],"performance":[25,305],"and":[26,51,102,120,134,143,151,157,169,190,244,277,299,303],"diagnostic":[27,163,268,304],"capability":[28],"of":[29,167],"metasurface":[31,96,259,294],"for":[33,126,140,155,162,226,257],"knee":[34,55,106,311],"MRI.":[35],"STUDY":[36],"TYPE:":[37],"Prospective.":[38],"PHANTOM/POPULATION:":[39],"A":[40],"cylindrical":[41],"phantom,":[42,180],"60":[43],"healthy":[44],"volunteers":[45],"(36":[46],"females;":[47,58],"median":[48,59],"age,":[49,60],"33),":[50],"52":[52],"patients":[53],"with":[54,93,171],"injuries":[56,145],"(28":[57],"47).":[61],"FIELD":[62],"STRENGTH/SEQUENCES:":[63],"T1":[64],"Weighted":[65],"Spin":[66],"Echo":[67,81],"(T1W":[68,82],"SE),":[69],"Fat-Saturated":[70],"Proton":[71],"Density-Weighted":[72],"Fast":[73],"Spin-Echo":[74],"(FS":[75],"PDW":[76,232],"FSE),":[77],"T1-Weighted":[78],"Gradient":[79],"Recalled":[80],"GRE)":[83],"at":[84,313],"1.5":[85,314],"T.":[86,315],"ASSESSMENT:":[87],"All":[88],"subjects":[89],"underwent":[90],"paired":[91],"scanning":[92],"wireless":[95,293],"(plus":[98],"built-in":[99],"spine":[100],"array)":[101],"commercial":[104,198,310],"12-channel":[105,228,309],"coil.":[107],"Phantom":[108],"metrics":[109],"included":[110],"signal-to-noise":[111],"ratio":[112,132,192],"(SNR),":[113],"percent":[114],"uniformity":[116,214],"(PIU),":[117],"ghost-to-signal":[118,191],"ratio,":[119],"B1":[121,212],"mapping.":[122],"Volunteers":[123],"were":[124,138,223,239,282],"scored":[125],"(5-point),":[129],"SNR,":[130],"contrast-to-noise":[131],"(CNR),":[133],"handling":[135],"convenience.":[136],"Patients":[137],"assessed":[139],"ACL,":[141],"meniscal,":[142],"cartilage":[144],"against":[146],"arthroscopy.":[147],"STATISTICAL":[148],"TESTS:":[149],"T-test":[150],"Wilcoxon":[152],"signed-rank":[153],"test":[154,161],"quantitative":[156],"semi-quantitative":[158],"data;":[159],"McNemar":[160],"efficacy.":[164],"Kendall's":[165],"coefficient":[166],"concordance":[168],"kappa,":[170],"p":[172,263],"<":[173,235,264],"0.05":[174],"considered":[175],"significant.":[176],"RESULTS:":[177],"In":[178,217,266],"SNR":[181],"was":[182,203,215,254,288,296],"196.14":[183],"versus":[184,188,194],"183.34,":[185],"PIU":[186],"92.47%":[187],"71.30%,":[189],"0.0093":[193],"0.0145":[195],"(metasurface":[196],"vs.":[197,261,271,275,280],"coil).":[199],"Measured":[200],"flip":[201],"angle":[202],"44.7°":[204],"±":[205],"1.31°":[206],"(0.67%":[207],"deviation":[208],"from":[209],"nominal":[210],"45°);":[211],"field":[213],"91.14%.":[216],"volunteers,":[218],"subjective":[219],"scores":[222,238],"slightly":[224],"higher":[225],"FS":[231,246],"FSE":[233],"(p":[234,249],"0.05),":[236],"whereas":[237],"comparable":[240,283,306],"T1W":[242,247],"SE":[243],"3D":[245],"GRE":[248],"=":[250],"0.06,":[251],"0.38).":[252],"Convenience":[253],"markedly":[255],"better":[256],"(5.0":[260],"4.0,":[262],"0.05).":[265],"patients,":[267],"sensitivity":[269],"(72.7%-83.3%":[270],"72.7%-81.5%),":[272],"specificity":[273],"(86.7%-96.4%":[274],"85.6%-96.4%),":[276],"accuracy":[278],"(82.1%-90.4%":[279],"81.4%-88.5%)":[281],"between":[284],"coils,":[285],"inter-coil":[286],"kappa":[287],"0.884-1.000.":[289],"\\"DATA\\"":[290],"CONCLUSION:":[291],"The":[292],"more":[297],"convenient":[298],"provided":[300],"EVIDENCE":[316],"LEVEL:":[317],"2.":[318],"TECHNICAL":[319],"EFFICACY:":[320],"Stage":[321],"3.":[322]}

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published
2026-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.70551
Primary Topic
Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Diagnostic Performance of a Metasurface Coil Compared With a Commercial 12‐Channel Coil for Knee MRI at 1. 5 T

Qian Zhao, 陈中玉, Zhonghai Chi, Zhuozhao Zheng et al.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
article

Diagnostic Performance of a Metasurface Coil Compared With a Commercial 12‐Channel Coil for Knee MRI at 1. 5 T

Qian Zhao, 陈中玉, Zhonghai Chi, Zhuozhao Zheng, Yingyi Qi, Yakui Wang, Yi Yi, Jie Gao, Zhiang Wang, Xinxin Li, Zhixin Sun
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Knee MRI image quality depends largely on the radiofrequency coil; metasurfaces offer a new approach to improving coil performance. PURPOSE: To evaluate the imaging performance and diagnostic capability of a metasurface coil for knee MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. PHANTOM/POPULATION: A cylindrical phantom, 60 healthy volunteers (36 females; median age, 33), and 52 patients with knee injuries (28 females; median age, 47). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: T1 Weighted Spin Echo (T1W SE), Fat-Saturated Proton Density-Weighted Fast Spin-Echo (FS PDW FSE), T1-Weighted Gradient Recalled Echo (T1W GRE) at 1.5 T. ASSESSMENT: All subjects underwent paired scanning with a wireless metasurface coil (plus built-in spine array) and a commercial 12-channel knee coil. Phantom metrics included signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), percent image uniformity (PIU), ghost-to-signal ratio, and B1 mapping. Volunteers were scored for image quality (5-point), SNR, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and handling convenience. Patients were assessed for ACL, meniscal, and cartilage injuries against arthroscopy. STATISTICAL TESTS: T-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for quantitative and semi-quantitative data; McNemar test for diagnostic efficacy. Kendall's coefficient of concordance and kappa, with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: In the phantom, SNR was 196.14 versus 183.34, PIU 92.47% versus 71.30%, and ghost-to-signal ratio 0.0093 versus 0.0145 (metasurface vs. commercial coil). Measured flip angle was 44.7° ± 1.31° (0.67% deviation from nominal 45°); B1 field uniformity was 91.14%. In volunteers, subjective image quality scores were slightly higher for the 12-channel coil on FS PDW FSE (p < 0.05), whereas scores were comparable on T1W SE and 3D FS T1W GRE (p = 0.06, 0.38). Convenience was markedly better for the metasurface (5.0 vs. 4.0, p < 0.05). In patients, diagnostic sensitivity (72.7%-83.3% vs. 72.7%-81.5%), specificity (86.7%-96.4% vs. 85.6%-96.4%), and accuracy (82.1%-90.4% vs. 81.4%-88.5%) were comparable between coils, inter-coil kappa was 0.884-1.000. "DATA" CONCLUSION: The wireless metasurface coil was more convenient and provided image quality and diagnostic performance comparable to the 12-channel commercial knee coil at 1.5 T. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
University Town of Shenzhen (CN), Tsinghua–Berkeley Shenzhen Institute (CN), Beijing Tsinghua Chang Gung Hospital (CN), Tsinghua University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.