MRI vs PET (1 Viewer)

[VenomP]

When would an MRI be more desirable to use than a PET scan? Like, specifically what diseases would be diagnosed better by each?

I figure since MRI works on detecting Hydrogen nuclei, it'd show things more clearly where there is a lot of water or something. So would these be totally useless for bone imaging (since bones contain no hydrogen)?

 

[clonestar]

MRI is more desirable when contrasting differing tissues and looking for variation within this tissue. It can focus on static and live images. Soft tissue is a particular focus for MRI technology. Diseases include tumors and heart disease associated problems.

PET is more centralised focusing on a certain organ and it's uptake of a certain radioisotope which is absorbed particularly by that organ. For eg brain activity can be analysed with PET imaging and F-18 FDG. Also, Lymph node activity and functionality can be observed via PET technology.

 

[Nivek5]

Most Broken bones which are too small for an x-ray to see can be seen on an MRI
They are particularly useful for cartilage diagnosis (From experience on the knee)

Consider this, your body is 90% hydrogen.
Each part of your body has a different Lamour (correct my spelling) Frequency, so all different bones, tissues, cartilage, etc. in the body can be isolated during the scan. (An MRI)



I'm not 100% sure but i believe PET scans use radioisotopes the produce an image in fluid build ups.

Example: During a PET scan on the brain they make the patient think of different things and move different parts of their body to isolate the problem area. (as these actions use different parts of the brain)


MRI : images the actual bone, physical features.
PET : image the way the area functions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, i was just writing from memory.

 

[raymond123]

+1