Jiahao Lin1,2, Siyuan Liu2, Rock Hadley3, Marvin Bergsneider4, Giyarpuram N Prashant4, Sophie Peeters4, Robert Candler2,5, and Kyunghyun Sung1
1Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, LOS ANGELES, CA, United States, 2Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, LOS ANGELES, CA, United States, 3Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States, 4Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, LOS ANGELES, CA, United States, 5California NanoSystems Institute, Los Angeles, CA, United States
1Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, LOS ANGELES, CA, United States, 2Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, LOS ANGELES, CA, United States, 3Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States, 4Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, LOS ANGELES, CA, United States, 5California NanoSystems Institute, Los Angeles, CA, United States
We construct an agar phantom to examine the SNR variation as the coil plane rotates from 0° to 90°, respect to B0. Our local pituitary coil has improved SNR with a factor, ranged from 3.3 to 4.2, compared to the commercial Siemens head coil as long as the positioning of the coil to be within 0° and 70°.
Figure 5, Local pituitary coil and Siemens head coil combined SNR, versus simulation SNR. Siemens commercial head coil SNR is not affected by the local coil angle.
Figure 1, local pituitary coil placement against pituitary gland, and the illustration coil angle with respect to the scanner bed (B0 field).