Thanks for you comment and thoughts. Good idea. Will do next time ☺️

Thanks for the input ☺️

More Will come

Correct. Using tse separste mode as far my experience you need to go beyond with phase oversampling as you say. Especially having small fov. It's sense parallel imaging based. Using integrated you can optimise as from what you are used to without Drb. But then sometimes images can turned out bad. Need to find the balance between those two options.

No it is mainly not about wrapping artifacts! - it is because of SNR and how DRB works or what u want. You can only get a faster exams by upping P value or reducing NEX. Most ppl also want a higher in plane resolution or thinner slices. So sometimes you reduce NEX to 1 from 2 and depending on the resolution your SNR is tool low even von DRB high. The other scenario is that u already have only 1 NEX ad can't go an lower here but want better and faster images, so u set grappa to 3 or 4 (4 introduces a sig noise and loss of detail) and u raise the resolution - in those cases u mostly get a 10-20% increase in in-plane Resolution. In both scenarios u can end up with not enough SNR in DRB high and u need oversampling to get 5-10% SNR "back" - that is why oversampling with DRB is mostly always higher set than it was with older protocols. This is also one of the main difference GE vs Siemens as GE offers "half nex" for TSE and 0.1 steps for Blade sequences. With GE u have much more flexibility in terms of speed and SNR with DL / AirRecon DL than u get with the Siemens system - we have a Siemens with DRB and a GE with "full" AirDL. Currently AirRecon DL is hugely superior to DRB - cleaner images, less artifacts (pulsation and gibbs artifact gets removed in k-space). Also the recon time faster, Siemens needs 25-30s per series to compute and display and GE only 5-10.

@@brainthesizeofplanet thanks for the input. 👍. They all got pros and cons in general. I'm not lucky as you to have those two vendors for comparison 🥲

​@@brainthesizeofplanetmy images on Siemens are reconstructing mid sequence with Deep Resolve.

hi its under exam card - CONTRAST - COMMON - Wrap-Up Magn - RESTORE

You can try and play with those settings. But most of the time it's between choosing integrated vs tse separate

If your ipat is set really high it may be worth it to add some additional reference lines so that the ref scan, whether separate or integrated, will be a bit more robust. If you don't have enough phase encoded data in some form, you can end up with like only 50 lines in the ky direction if you're not careful. Shouldn't affect time too much to increase it. Like Bac says double check what happens when you change it. Very high ipat and very few ref lines starve the reconstruction of real data, but deep resolve will still try to fill the gaps by making stuff up.

Good questions. Applicable with all coils. And for 3T for better images and scan time purposes.

uh.... - The Siemens solution is currently inferior to the GE AirRecon DL and that by quite a a bit. With AirRecon DL u can acquire a much higher resolution and thinner slices than before in less time - i.e a knee Exam in 2.5mm and 0.5/0.4 voxel size in less than 7 minutes - the difference is remarkable

​@@brainthesizeofplanet I've been able to do 0.2mm voxel size in that same time on a Siemens. I think you might need to revisit your sequences. Also, I heard the GE Recon looks really smooth and plastic. Is this still the case?

@@calbang If u have the time u can do it - but better check that u are actually scanning in 0.2, most Siemens scanner show the calculated voxel size and not what u are scanning in. .what scanner are u using it on? The denoising if the GE solution is better and yes in high it looks very smooth/plastic - that's the result if the denoising . I doubt many ppl have a GE and Siemens with DL to compare, what I can tell for now is that the GE solution is more flexible, more advanced (3D sequences, blade and tse) and has better denoising - GE is currently running circles around Siemens with DL and they have a advantage of about 3 years in term of development i.e k-space artifact removal (gibbs, pulsation), complete k-space DL (Siemes is partly in 2d postprocessing), faster denoising calculations, a lot more sequences

​@@brainthesizeofplanet Acquiring voxel

Add a NEX and compensate for time/signal increase

@@iansze2652 As mentioned initially, adding an average does not fix it. I haven’t run more than 2 NEX, but adding a third basically negates the time saving benefits of DRB.

@@chrisunguez Hmmm, I assume also you've tried sat bands superior to the stack as well and this also doesn't work...I think all that's left is swapping your phase. I think sometimes adding even one more average in addition to the other fixes mentioned above may actually minimize the artifact/move it off the AOI. It would also depend on whether you are scanning on a 1.5T or a 3T, as a 3T would natrually pick up more motion/breathing/flow artifacts.

@@iansze2652 Superior sat bands don’t seem to help, either. I hadn’t considered swapping phase, since I’d assumed the breathing artifact A>P or P>A would be just as bad. But thanks, I might try F>H rather than H>F. Not sure if it’ll help, but worth a shot. Also, we only have DRB on our 1.5T at the moment. I’m curious to see how these various DRB artifacts look at a higher field strength.

@@chrisunguezhola, puedes probar cambiando la dirección de fase en F/H, disminuyendo el flip angle que también ayuda a diminuir los artefactos de movimientos y flujo,adicional a ello puedes colocar compensación de flujo en frecuencia y lo más importante… un posicionamiento correcto del paciente para evitar el artefacto de anefacto el cual se produce por recepción de señal fuera del FOV en zonas donde hay bobinas activadas

hi its under exam card - CONTRAST - COMMON - Wrap-Up Magn - RESTORE