Page 81 - 《中国医疗器械杂志》2026年第2期

Chinese Journal of Medical Instrumentation 2026年 第50卷 第2期

临 床 医 学 工 程

文章编号：1671-7104(2026)02-0195-06

3.0 T大脑磁共振单体素点分辨波谱快速成像的可行性研究

【作 者】 王巍，胡佳豪，许伟男，胡盛杰
温州医科大学中西医结合医院 放射科，温州市，325000
【摘 要】 目的 探讨3.0 T大脑磁共振单体素点分辨波谱（PRESS SV）快速成像序列在不同参数条件下的可行性，并
与常规PRESS序列进行对比。方法 回顾性选取温州医科大学中西医结合医院2022年9月至2024年8月期间
的200例接受脑部磁共振扫描患者，其中男性114例，女性86例，平均年龄（47.12±11.47）岁。基于实测
线宽、扫描总数、回波时间（TE）3种参数组合，将患者分为5组：①对照组：小线宽常规短TE PRESS组
（39例）；②观察组：大线宽快速短TE PRESS组（39例）、大线宽快速长TE PRESS组（38例）、小线
宽快速短TE PRESS组（40例）、小线宽快速长TE PRESS组（44例）。为验证参数变量的影响，对照组
行两次常规PRESS SV序列扫描；观察组行快速PRESS SV扫描后追加常规PRESS SV作为对照。分析各
组内两次扫描所得代谢物SNR值及半定量值的差异；并对影响图像判读的参数进行Logistic回归分析。结果
①5组两次扫描的代谢物半定量值差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。②快速PRESS SV序列的Cr SNR均值
约为常规序列的（57.11±4.07）%，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。③大线宽快速PRESS SV序列在体素
为4.5 cm 时，图像质量较差，无法判读率是常规序列的1.5~2倍。④Logistic回归分析显示，当体素从
3
3
8 cm 减小至4.5 cm 时，图像不可判读的风险增加3.45倍；线宽≥9 Hz时风险增加2.09倍；TE=144 ms时风
3
险增加2.08倍。结论 3.0 T大脑快速PRESS SV序列可以替代常规PRESS SV序列应用于临床扫描，缩短扫
3
描时间；当线宽≥9 Hz时，建议扫描8 cm 体素或35 ms回波时间，以提高成像成功率。
【关 键 词】 快速；磁共振波谱成像；点分辨波谱成像；大脑
【中图分类号】 R197.39; TH77
【文献标志码】 A doi: 10.12455/j.issn.1671-7104.250398
Feasibility Study of Rapid Single-Voxel Point-Resolved Spectroscopy in
3.0 T Brain MRI

【 Authors 】 WANG Wei, HU Jiahao, XU Weinan, HU Shengjie
Department of Radiology, Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital of Wenzhou
Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000
【 Abstract 】 Objective To explore the feasibility of the 3.0 T brain magnetic resonance single-voxel point-resolved
spectroscopy (PRESS SV) fast imaging sequence under different parameter conditions and to compare it
with the conventional PRESS sequence. Methods Retrospectively, 200 patients who underwent brain
magnetic resonance scans at the Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital of
Wenzhou Medical University from September 2022 to August 2024 were selected, including 114 males
and 86 females, with an average age of (47.12±11.47) years. Based on three parameter
combinations—measured linewidth, total number of scans, and echo time (TE)—the patients were
retrospectively divided into 5 groups: ①Control groups: small linewidth conventional short TE PRESS
group (39 cases); ②Observation groups: large linewidth fast short TE PRESS group (39 cases), large
linewidth fast long TE PRESS group (38 cases), small linewidth fast short TE PRESS group (40 cases),
small linewidth fast long TE PRESS group (44 cases). To verify the influence of parameter variables, the
control group underwent two conventional PRESS SV sequence scans; the observation groups
underwent fast PRESS SV scans followed by an additional conventional PRESS SV scan as a control.
The differences in metabolite SNR values and semi-quantitative values obtained from the two scans in
each group were analyzed; Logistic regression analysis was performed on the parameters affecting
image interpretation. Results ①The differences in metabolite semi-quantitative values between the two

收稿日期：2025-06-11
基金项目：温州市科学技术局基金项目（Y20220465）
作者简介：王巍，E-mail: wangwei9891@126.com

195