A flexible MRI coil based on a cable conductor and applied to knee imaging

Abstract

Abstract Flexible radiofrequency coils for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have garnered attention in research and industrial communities because they provide improved accessibility and performance and can accommodate a range of anatomic postures. Most recent flexible coil developments involve customized conductors or substrate materials and/or target applications at 3 T or above. In contrast, we set out to design a flexible coil based on an off-the-shelf conductor that is suitable for operation at 0.55 T (23.55 MHz). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) degradation can occur in such an environment because the resistance of the coil conductor can be significant with respect to the sample. We found that resonating a commercially available RG-223 coaxial cable shield with a lumped capacitor while the inner conductor remained electrically floating gave rise to a highly effective “cable coil.” A 10-cm diameter cable coil was flexible enough to wrap around the knee, an application that can benefit from flexible coils, and had similar conductor loss and SNR as a standard-of-reference rigid copper coil. A two-channel cable coil array also provided good SNR robustness against geometric variability, outperforming a two-channel coaxial coil array by 26 and 16% when the elements were overlapped by 20–40% or gapped by 30–50%, respectively. A 6-channel cable coil array was constructed for 0.55 T knee imaging. Incidental cartilage and bone pathologies were clearly delineated in T1- and T2-weighted turbo spin echo images acquired in 3–4 min with the proposed coil, suggesting that clinical quality knee imaging is feasible in an acceptable examination timeframe. Correcting for T1, the SNR measured with the cable coil was approximately threefold lower than that measured with a 1.5 T state-of-the-art 18-channel coil, which is expected given the threefold difference in main magnetic field strength. This result suggests that the 0.55 T cable coil conductor loss does not deleteriously impact SNR, which might be anticipated at low field.