Objective: To prospectively evaluate the effect of accelerated deep learning-based reconstruction (Accel-DL) on improving brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality and reducing scan time compared to that in conventional MRI. Materials and Methods: This study included 150 participants (51 male; mean age 57.3 ± 16.2 years). Each group of 50 participants was scanned using one of three 3T scanners from three different vendors. Conventional and Accel-DL MRI images were obtained from each participant and compared using 2D T1- and T2-weighted and 3D gradient-echo sequences. Accel-DL acquisition was achieved using optimized scan parameters to reduce the scan time, with the acquired images reconstructed using U-Net-based software to transform low-quality, undersampled k-space data into high-quality images. The scan times of Accel-DL and conventional MRI methods were compared. Four neuroradiologists assessed the overall image quality, structural delineation, and artifacts using Likert scale (5- and 3-point scales). Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa coefficient. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated, and volumetric quantification of regional structures and white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) was performed. Results: Accel-DL showed a mean scan time reduction of 39.4% (range, 24.2%–51.3%). Accel-DL improved overall image quality (3.78 ± 0.71 vs. 3.36 ± 0.61, P < 0.001), structure delineation (2.47 ± 0.61 vs. 2.35 ± 0.62, P < 0.001), and artifacts (3.73 ± 0.72 vs. 3.71 ± 0.69, P = 0.016). Inter-reader agreement was fair to substantial (κ = 0.34–0.50). SNR and CNR increased in Accel-DL (82.0 ± 23.1 vs. 31.4 ± 10.8, P = 0.02; 12.4 ± 4.1 vs. 4.4 ± 11.2, P = 0.02). Bland-Altman plots revealed no significant differences in the volumetric measurements of 98.2% of the relevant regions, except in the deep gray matter, including the thalamus. Five of the six lesion categories showed no significant differences in WMH segmentation, except for leukocortical lesions (r = 0.64 ± 0.29). Conclusion Accel-DL substantially reduced the scan time and improved the quality of brain MRI in both spin-echo and gradientecho sequences without compromising volumetry, including lesion quantification.

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the effect of accelerated deep learning-based reconstruction (Accel-DL) on improving brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality and reducing scan time compared to that in conventional MRI. Materials and Methods: This study included 150 participants (51 male; mean age 57.3 ± 16.2 years). Each group of 50 participants was scanned using one of three 3T scanners from three different vendors. Conventional and Accel-DL MRI images were obtained from each participant and compared using 2D T1- and T2-weighted and 3D gradient-echo sequences. Accel-DL acquisition was achieved using optimized scan parameters to reduce the scan time, with the acquired images reconstructed using U-Net-based software to transform low-quality, undersampled k-space data into high-quality images. The scan times of Accel-DL and conventional MRI methods were compared. Four neuroradiologists assessed the overall image quality, structural delineation, and artifacts using Likert scale (5- and 3-point scales). Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa coefficient. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated, and volumetric quantification of regional structures and white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) was performed. Results: Accel-DL showed a mean scan time reduction of 39.4% (range, 24.2%–51.3%). Accel-DL improved overall image quality (3.78 ± 0.71 vs. 3.36 ± 0.61, P < 0.001), structure delineation (2.47 ± 0.61 vs. 2.35 ± 0.62, P < 0.001), and artifacts (3.73 ± 0.72 vs. 3.71 ± 0.69, P = 0.016). Inter-reader agreement was fair to substantial (κ = 0.34–0.50). SNR and CNR increased in Accel-DL (82.0 ± 23.1 vs. 31.4 ± 10.8, P = 0.02; 12.4 ± 4.1 vs. 4.4 ± 11.2, P = 0.02). Bland-Altman plots revealed no significant differences in the volumetric measurements of 98.2% of the relevant regions, except in the deep gray matter, including the thalamus. Five of the six lesion categories showed no significant differences in WMH segmentation, except for leukocortical lesions (r = 0.64 ± 0.29). Conclusion Accel-DL substantially reduced the scan time and improved the quality of brain MRI in both spin-echo and gradientecho sequences without compromising volumetry, including lesion quantification.

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the effect of accelerated deep learning-based reconstruction (Accel-DL) on improving brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality and reducing scan time compared to that in conventional MRI. Materials and Methods: This study included 150 participants (51 male; mean age 57.3 ± 16.2 years). Each group of 50 participants was scanned using one of three 3T scanners from three different vendors. Conventional and Accel-DL MRI images were obtained from each participant and compared using 2D T1- and T2-weighted and 3D gradient-echo sequences. Accel-DL acquisition was achieved using optimized scan parameters to reduce the scan time, with the acquired images reconstructed using U-Net-based software to transform low-quality, undersampled k-space data into high-quality images. The scan times of Accel-DL and conventional MRI methods were compared. Four neuroradiologists assessed the overall image quality, structural delineation, and artifacts using Likert scale (5- and 3-point scales). Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa coefficient. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated, and volumetric quantification of regional structures and white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) was performed. Results: Accel-DL showed a mean scan time reduction of 39.4% (range, 24.2%–51.3%). Accel-DL improved overall image quality (3.78 ± 0.71 vs. 3.36 ± 0.61, P < 0.001), structure delineation (2.47 ± 0.61 vs. 2.35 ± 0.62, P < 0.001), and artifacts (3.73 ± 0.72 vs. 3.71 ± 0.69, P = 0.016). Inter-reader agreement was fair to substantial (κ = 0.34–0.50). SNR and CNR increased in Accel-DL (82.0 ± 23.1 vs. 31.4 ± 10.8, P = 0.02; 12.4 ± 4.1 vs. 4.4 ± 11.2, P = 0.02). Bland-Altman plots revealed no significant differences in the volumetric measurements of 98.2% of the relevant regions, except in the deep gray matter, including the thalamus. Five of the six lesion categories showed no significant differences in WMH segmentation, except for leukocortical lesions (r = 0.64 ± 0.29). Conclusion Accel-DL substantially reduced the scan time and improved the quality of brain MRI in both spin-echo and gradientecho sequences without compromising volumetry, including lesion quantification.

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the effect of accelerated deep learning-based reconstruction (Accel-DL) on improving brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality and reducing scan time compared to that in conventional MRI. Materials and Methods: This study included 150 participants (51 male; mean age 57.3 ± 16.2 years). Each group of 50 participants was scanned using one of three 3T scanners from three different vendors. Conventional and Accel-DL MRI images were obtained from each participant and compared using 2D T1- and T2-weighted and 3D gradient-echo sequences. Accel-DL acquisition was achieved using optimized scan parameters to reduce the scan time, with the acquired images reconstructed using U-Net-based software to transform low-quality, undersampled k-space data into high-quality images. The scan times of Accel-DL and conventional MRI methods were compared. Four neuroradiologists assessed the overall image quality, structural delineation, and artifacts using Likert scale (5- and 3-point scales). Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa coefficient. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated, and volumetric quantification of regional structures and white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) was performed. Results: Accel-DL showed a mean scan time reduction of 39.4% (range, 24.2%–51.3%). Accel-DL improved overall image quality (3.78 ± 0.71 vs. 3.36 ± 0.61, P < 0.001), structure delineation (2.47 ± 0.61 vs. 2.35 ± 0.62, P < 0.001), and artifacts (3.73 ± 0.72 vs. 3.71 ± 0.69, P = 0.016). Inter-reader agreement was fair to substantial (κ = 0.34–0.50). SNR and CNR increased in Accel-DL (82.0 ± 23.1 vs. 31.4 ± 10.8, P = 0.02; 12.4 ± 4.1 vs. 4.4 ± 11.2, P = 0.02). Bland-Altman plots revealed no significant differences in the volumetric measurements of 98.2% of the relevant regions, except in the deep gray matter, including the thalamus. Five of the six lesion categories showed no significant differences in WMH segmentation, except for leukocortical lesions (r = 0.64 ± 0.29). Conclusion Accel-DL substantially reduced the scan time and improved the quality of brain MRI in both spin-echo and gradientecho sequences without compromising volumetry, including lesion quantification.

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the effect of accelerated deep learning-based reconstruction (Accel-DL) on improving brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality and reducing scan time compared to that in conventional MRI. Materials and Methods: This study included 150 participants (51 male; mean age 57.3 ± 16.2 years). Each group of 50 participants was scanned using one of three 3T scanners from three different vendors. Conventional and Accel-DL MRI images were obtained from each participant and compared using 2D T1- and T2-weighted and 3D gradient-echo sequences. Accel-DL acquisition was achieved using optimized scan parameters to reduce the scan time, with the acquired images reconstructed using U-Net-based software to transform low-quality, undersampled k-space data into high-quality images. The scan times of Accel-DL and conventional MRI methods were compared. Four neuroradiologists assessed the overall image quality, structural delineation, and artifacts using Likert scale (5- and 3-point scales). Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa coefficient. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated, and volumetric quantification of regional structures and white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) was performed. Results: Accel-DL showed a mean scan time reduction of 39.4% (range, 24.2%–51.3%). Accel-DL improved overall image quality (3.78 ± 0.71 vs. 3.36 ± 0.61, P < 0.001), structure delineation (2.47 ± 0.61 vs. 2.35 ± 0.62, P < 0.001), and artifacts (3.73 ± 0.72 vs. 3.71 ± 0.69, P = 0.016). Inter-reader agreement was fair to substantial (κ = 0.34–0.50). SNR and CNR increased in Accel-DL (82.0 ± 23.1 vs. 31.4 ± 10.8, P = 0.02; 12.4 ± 4.1 vs. 4.4 ± 11.2, P = 0.02). Bland-Altman plots revealed no significant differences in the volumetric measurements of 98.2% of the relevant regions, except in the deep gray matter, including the thalamus. Five of the six lesion categories showed no significant differences in WMH segmentation, except for leukocortical lesions (r = 0.64 ± 0.29). Conclusion Accel-DL substantially reduced the scan time and improved the quality of brain MRI in both spin-echo and gradientecho sequences without compromising volumetry, including lesion quantification.

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

Objective: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been performed for spinal tumors. However, the quantitative effect of SRS on postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors remains unknown. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SRS for treating postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors from 1995 to 2020 in 2 tertiary institutions. Residual tumors underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up (observation group). Tumor regrowth rates were compared between the SRS and observation groups. Additionally, risk factors for tumor regrowth were analyzed. Results: A total of 28 cervical dumbbell tumors were incompletely resected. Eight patients were in the SRS group, and 20 in the observation group. The mean regrowth rate was not significantly lower (p = 0.784) in the SRS group (0.18 ± 0.29 mm/mo) than in the observation group (0.33 ± 0.40 mm/mo). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, SRS was not a significant variable (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–1.79; p = 0.336). Conclusion SRS did not significantly decrease the tumor regrowth rate in our study. We believe that achieving maximal resection during the initial operation is more important than postoperative adjuvant SRS.