Fig 1.
Mean peak sound pressure level in dB(A) for the two FLAIR sequences.
A: acquired without QS (QuietSuite) acoustic noise reduction software; B: acquired with QS. There was a slight but statistically significant noise reduction with use of QS. ** P ≤ 0.001.
Table 1.
QuietSuite impact on acoustic noise.
Fig 2.
65-year-old male patient who underwent cranial MRI to screen for metastasis.
The examples illustrate the quality of FLAIR images acquired without (left) and with (right) acoustic noise reduction software. There was no difference in subjective image quality, and both sequences were of diagnostic quality.
Fig 3.
Unchanged image quality between sequences acquired with and without acoustic noise reduction software is also confirmed in these magnified details. The circles are regions of interests (ROIs) placed in CSF (1), gray matter (2), and white matter (3) for quantative signal-to-noise analysis.
Fig 4.
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) analysis in three regions of interest.
CSF, white matter, and gray matter. Sequence A was acquired without acoustic noise reduction software and sequence B with the acoustic noise reduction software. Use of the noise reduction software significantly increased SNR. ** P ≤ 0.001.
Table 2.
Changes in background noise (SD), signal intensity (SI) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) according to the use of QuietSuite.