Introduction: Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders, characterised by recurrent, unprovoked seizures caused by abnormal electrical activity in the brain. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a key role in epilepsy diagnostics, as it enables precise visualisation of structural brain changes associated with epileptic seizures. Appropriate MRI protocols are essential for reliable detection of epileptogenic lesions. Purpose: The purpose of this thesis was to present and compare MRI protocols used in clinical practice in Ljubljana with the internationally recommended HARNESS protocol, and to define the role of the radiological technologist in their implementation. Methods: A descriptive method with a literature review was used. Sources were obtained from Google Scholar, PubMed, COBISS, and ScienceDirect. Professional articles published between 2010 and 2026 addressing MRI diagnostics of epilepsy and the HARNESS protocol were included. Four MRI protocols were compared according to the sequences used, examination parameters, and scan duration. Results: All analysed protocols included the basic MRI sequences T1, T2, and FLAIR, which are essential for detecting epileptogenic changes. Clinical protocols often incorporated additional sequences, such as DWI, SWI, or perfusion imaging, which broaden diagnostic possibilities but increase examination time. The HARNESS protocol is based on three key sequences (3D T1 MPRAGE, 3D FLAIR, and coronal T2 TSE), providing high diagnostic sensitivity with a reduced scan time of approximately 18 minutes. Discussion and Conclusion: MRI is essential in the management of epilepsy. While the HARNESS protocol is not necessarily diagnostically superior to existing clinical protocols, it offers greater standardisation, reproducibility, and shorter examination times. The use of isotropic 3D sequences also allows easier multiplanar reconstructions, which may assist radiological technologists. Standardised protocols improve comparability of results between institutions and enable more consistent long-term patient follow-up. In more complex clinical cases, additional MRI sequences remain justified to ensure comprehensive diagnostic evaluation.
|