PURPOSE: To compare the visualization of salivary ducts by ultrafast magnetic resonance sialography (MR sialography) using an alternative surface coil and a conventional head-neck coil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 11 healthy volunteers, ultrafast MR sialography (single shot turbo spin echo; acquisition time, 2.8 s) was performed before and after oral application of a sialogogue. Each subject received examinations with both a bilateral surface coil (SC) and a conventional head-neck coil (HNC). The depiction of parotideal and submandibular duct systems was graded from 1 to 5 (5 = poor) by four independent radiologists. ANOVA served for statistical analysis of duct rankings, and interobserver variability was determined by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: With an excellent ICC of 0.96, both coil systems offered symmetric visualization of salivary ducts, and the image quality increased after oral application of sialogogue (p <0.001). In total, the overall rating was worse for SC than for HNC (2.13 +/- 1.24 vs. 1.45 +/- 0.65, p <0.001). SC was especially inferior in depiction of submandibular and extraglandular duct components compared to HNC (p <0.001). CONCLUSION: Most notably due to the reduced visualization of extraglandular and submandibular ducts, the specific surface coil used in this study was inferior in image quality and does not constitute a reasonable alternative to conventional coil systems.
PURPOSE: To compare the visualization of salivary ducts by ultrafast magnetic resonance sialography (MR sialography) using an alternative surface coil and a conventional head-neck coil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 11 healthy volunteers, ultrafast MR sialography (single shot turbo spin echo; acquisition time, 2.8 s) was performed before and after oral application of a sialogogue. Each subject received examinations with both a bilateral surface coil (SC) and a conventional head-neck coil (HNC). The depiction of parotideal and submandibular duct systems was graded from 1 to 5 (5 = poor) by four independent radiologists. ANOVA served for statistical analysis of duct rankings, and interobserver variability was determined by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: With an excellent ICC of 0.96, both coil systems offered symmetric visualization of salivary ducts, and the image quality increased after oral application of sialogogue (p <0.001). In total, the overall rating was worse for SC than for HNC (2.13 +/- 1.24 vs. 1.45 +/- 0.65, p <0.001). SC was especially inferior in depiction of submandibular and extraglandular duct components compared to HNC (p <0.001). CONCLUSION: Most notably due to the reduced visualization of extraglandular and submandibular ducts, the specific surface coil used in this study was inferior in image quality and does not constitute a reasonable alternative to conventional coil systems.