Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 166, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 1213-1218

  Petersilge, Cheryl A ^a   Lewin, Jonathan S ^a   Duerk, Jeffrey L ^a   Yoo, Jung U ^b   Ghaneyem, Alexander J ^c  

^a CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

^c LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BONE SCREW; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LUMBAR SPINE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 0030012255     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.166.5.8615272     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ballock RT, Hajek PC, Byrne TP, Garfin SR. The quality of magnetic resonance imaging, as affected by the composition of the halo orthosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71-A:431-434
2. Czervionke LF, Daniels DL, Werhli FW, et al. Magnetic susceptibility artifacts in gradient-recalled echo MR imaging. AJNR 1988;9:1149-1155
3. Lyons CJ, Betz RR, Mesgarzadeh M, Revesz G, Bonakdarpour A, Clancy M The effect of magnetic resonance imaging on metal spine implants. Spine 1989,14:670-672
4. Rupp R, Ebraheim NA, Savolaine ER, Jackson WT. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the spine with metal implants Spine 1993;18:379-385
5. Sullivan PK, Smith JF, Rozzelle AA. Cranio-orbital reconstruction: safety and image quality of metallic implants on CT and MRI scanning. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;94:589-596
6. Williams DF Titanium as a metal for implantation: Part 2 Biological properties and clinical applications J Med Eng Technol 1977;1 266-270
7. Augustiny N, von Schulthess GK, Meier D, Bosiger P MR imaging of large nonferromagnetic metallic implants at 1.5T J Comput Assist Tomogr 1987,11:678-683
8. Ebraheim NA, Coombs RE, Jackson WT, Zeiss J. The effect of metallic implants on magnetic resonance imaging J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991; 73-A:1397-1398
9. Ebraheim NA, Savolaine ER, Stitgen SH, Jackson WT Magnetic resonance imaging after pedicular screw fixation of the spine. Clin Orthop 1992;279:133-137
10. Ebraheim NA, Savolaine ER, Zeiss J, Jackson WT. Titanium hip implants for improved magnetic resonance and computed tomography examinations Clin Orthop 1992;275.194-198
11. Mirvis SE, Geisler F, Joslyn JN, Zrebeet H. Use of titanium wire in cervical spine fixation as a means to reduce MR artifacts AJNR 1988:9 1229-1231
12. Mueller PR, Stark DD, Simeone JF, et al. MR-guided aspiration biopsy needle design and clinical trials Radiology 1986;161:605-609
13. New PFJ, Rosen BR, Brady TJ, et al. Potential hazards and artifacts of ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic surgical and dental materials and devices in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 1983;147 139-148
14. Teitelbaum GP, Bradley WG Jr, Klein BD. MR imaging artifacts, ferromagnetism, and magnetic torque of intravascular filters, stents, and coils Radiology 1988;166:657-664
15. Tominaga T Shimizu H, Koshu K, Kayama T, Yoshimoto T. Magnetic resonance imaging of titanium anterior cervical spine plating systems. NeuroSurgery 1995;36-951-955
16. Torpey B, Dormans JP, Drummond DS. The use of MRI-compatible titanium segmental spinal instrumentation in pediatric patients with intraspinal tumor. J Spinal Disord 1995,1:76-81
17. Ludeke KM, Roschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artifacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1985;3:329-343
18. Laakman RW, Kaufman B, Han JS, et al MR imaging in patients with metallic implants. Radiology 1985.157:711-714
19. Farahani K, Sinha U, Sinha S, Chiu LC-L. Lufkin RB Effect of field strength on susceptibility artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Cornput Med Imaging Graph 1990;14 409-413
20. Young IR, Cox IJ, Bryant DJ, Bydder GM. The benefits of increasing spatial resolution as a means of reducing artifacts due to field inhomogeneities. Magn Reson Imaging 1988;6:585-590
21. Vinitski S, Mitchell DG, Einstein SG, et al. Conventional and fast spin-echo MR imaging: minimizing echo time. J Magn Reson Imaging 1993;3: 501-507
22. Vinitski S, Gnffey R. Fuka M, Matwiyoff N, Prost R Effect of the sampling rate on magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 1987,5:278-285
23. Fache JS, Price C, Hawbolt EB, Li DKB. MR imaging artifacts produced by dental materials AJNR 1987;8:837-840
24. Camacho CR, Plewes DB, Henkelman RM Nonsusceptibility artifacts due to metallic objects in MH imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995;5:75-88
25. Tartaglino LM, Flanders AE, Vintiski S, Fnedman DP. Metallic artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiolgy 1994;190:565-569
26. Melki PS, Mulkern RV, Panych LP, Jolesz FA. Comparing the FAISE method with conventional dual-echo sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1:319-326
27. Jones KM, Mulkem RV, Mantello MT, et al. Brain hemorrhage: evaluation with fast spin-echo and conventional dual spin-echo images. Radiology 1992;182:53-58
28. Norbash AM, Glover GH, Enzmann DR. Intracerebral lesion contrast with spinecho and fast spin-echo pulse sequences. Radiology 1992,185:661-665