目的 比较国产与进口磁共振成像（Magnetic Resonance Equipment, MRI）设备在膝关节前交叉韧带（Anterior Cruciate Ligament，ACL）成像中的图像质量是否存在差异。方法 前瞻性分析包括上海市、广东省和辽宁省在内的全国 19个地区25家医院进行膝关节MRI扫描成像患者的450例图像资料，按照所使用设备的不同，将扫描图像分为国产MRI设 备组与进口MRI组，以及1.5T组与3.0T组。对矢状面脂肪抑制T2加权或质子密度（Proton Density，PD）、冠状面脂肪抑 制T2加权或PD、横断面脂肪抑制T2加权或PD以及矢状面T1加权成像序列的ACL显示以5分法（1分最差，5分最好）进行 主观评分评分及比较。结果 在矢状面脂肪抑制T2加权或PD序列中，1.5T MRI中两两比较显示奥泰（P=0.008）、Siemens （P=0.017）、朗润（P=0.001）和联影（P<0.001）均优于GE，具有统计学差异。在3.0T中，联影（P=0.031）优于GE，具 有统计学差异。在冠状面T2或PD脂肪抑制序列中，1.5T MRI中联影优于Siemens（P<0.001）和奥泰（P<0.001），具有统计 学差异。在3.0T中，联影（P=0.004）、Philips（P<0.001）优于GE，Philips（P=0.004）和联影（P=0.018）优于Siemens， 具有统计学差异。在横断位T2或PD脂肪抑制序列中，1.5T MRI中GE（P<0.001）和朗润（P=0.029）优于Siemens，且具有 统计学差异。在3.0T中，Philips（P=0.009）及联影（P=0.009）优于Siemens，且具有统计学差异。在矢状面T1加权序列 中，1.5T和3.0T设备之间差异均没有统计学意义。结论 无论是1.5T还是3.0T场强的MRI设备，国产与进口设备各序列在膝 关节ACL结构的显示评价中无明显差异，可用于临床诊断。

Objective To compare the image quality of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and knee imaging performed by domestic and imported magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment. Methods A total of 450 sets of knee MRI image datasets from 25 hospitals of 19 regions including Shanghai, Guangdong and Liaoning in China were prospectively analyzed. Image datasets were divided into domestic and imported MRI groups, as well as 1.5T and 3.0T groups according to different MRI equipment. Image quality of ACL demonstration on sagittal fat saturated T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) or proton density (PD) sequences, coronal T2WI or PD sequences, axial T2WI or PD sequences and sagittal T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) was evaluated by subjective 5-scale scores. 1-score represented the worst image quality and 5-score represented the best. Results Regarding sagittal T2WI or PD sequences, among 1.5T MRI group, post hoc comparison showed that the image quality of AoTai (P=0.008), Siemens (P=0.017), LangRun (P=0.001) and United Imaging (P<0.001) was better than that of GE with statistical significance. Among 3.0 T MRI group, image quality of United Imaging (P=0.031) was better than that of GE. Regarding coronal T2WI or PD sequences, among 1.5T MRI group, the image quality of United Imaging was better than that of Siemens (P<0.001) and AoTai (P<0.001) with statistical significance. Among 3.0T MRI group, image quality of United Imaging (P=0.004) and Philips (P<0.001) was better than that of GE, image quality of Philips (P=0.004) and United Imaging (P=0.018) was better than that of Siemens. Regarding axial T2WI or PD sequences, among 1.5T MRI group, the image quality of GE (P<0.001) and LangRun (P=0.029) was better than that of Siemens with statistical significance. Among 3.0T MRI group, image quality of Philips (P=0.009) and United Image (P=0.009) was better than that of Siemens. Regarding sagittal T1WI sequences, there was no statistically significant difference among various types of MRI equipment. Conclusion Whether 1.5T or 3.0T MRI equipment, in the evaluation of ACL and overall image quality, domestic MRI equipment had comparative image quality with imported MRI equipment, indicating its utility for clinical diagnosis.