Metallic artefacts in MR imaging: Effects of main field orientation and strength

Clinical Radiology

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 322-328

  Guermazi, Ali ^a   Miaux, Y ^b   Zaim, S ^b   Peterfy, C G ^b   White, D ^b   Genant, H K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b SYNARC INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Artefact; Magnetic resonance (MR); Metallic devices

Indexed keywords

FERROMAGNETIC MATERIAL;

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; BONE SCREW; DEVICE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAGNET; MAGNETIC FIELD; METAL IMPLANTATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT POSITIONING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0345830059     PISSN: 00099260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0009-9260(02)00540-8     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Arbogast-Ravier S, Gangi A, Choquet P, et al. An in vitro study at low field for MR guidance of a biopsy needle. Magn Reson Imaging, 1995; 13:321-324.
2. Hackl F, Uffmann M, Gindele A, et al. MR imaging in patients with orthopaedic hardware using a low-field dedicated extremity system. Eur Radiol, 1997;7:S121.
3. Shin KH, Suh JS, Jeong EK, et al. Minimizing artefacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1998;171:1207-1213.
4. Petersilge CA, Lewin JS, Duerk JL, et al. Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1996;166:1213-1218.
5. Wehrli FW, Czervionke LF, Daniels DL, et al. Magnetic susceptibility artefacts in gradient-recalled echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 1988;9:1149-1155.
6. Ladd ME, Erhart P, Debatin JF, et al. Biopsy needle susceptibility artefacts. Magn Reson Med, 1996;36:646-651.
7. Ludeke KM, Roschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging, 1985;3:329-343.
8. Tien RD, Buxton RB, Schwaighofer BW, Chu PK. Quantitation of structural distortion of the cervical neural foramina in gradient-echo MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging, 1991;1:683-687.
9. Bakker CJ, Bhagwandien R, Moerland MA, Fuderer M. Susceptibility artefacts in 2DFT spin-echo and gradient-echo imaging: the cylinder model revisited. Magn Reson Imaging, 1993;11:539-548.
10. Port JD, Pomper MG. Quantification and minimization of magnetic susceptibility artefacts on GRE images. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2000; 24:958-964.
11. Buxton R, Edelman RR, Johnson K, et al. MR of hemorrhage: a new approach. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 1986;7:751-756.
12. Sorensen AG, Rosen BR. Functional MRI of the brain. In Atlas SW ed. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine, 1st edn Philadelphia, U.S.A.: Lippincott-Raven, 1996; 1501-1545.
13. Goldberg R, Eustace S, Jara H, et al. A comparison of conventional spin-echo and turbo spin-echo imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopaedic hardware. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1998;170:455-458.
14. Viano AM, Gronemeyer SA, Haliloglu M, Hoffer FA. Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging, 2000;18:287-295.
15. Young IR, Cox IJ, Bryant DJ, Bydder GM. The benefits of increasing spatial resolution as a means of reducing artefacts due to field inhomogeneities. Magn Reson Imaging, 1988;6:585-590.
16. Alanen A, Bondestam S, Komu M. Artefacts in MR imaging caused by small quantities of powdered iron. Acta Radiol, 1995;36:92-95.
17. Camacho CR, Plewes DB, Henkelman RM. Nonsusceptibility artefacts due to metallic objects in MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging, 1995;5: 75-88.
18. Balac S, Caloz G, Cathelineau G, et al. Integral method for numerical simulation of MRI artefacts induced by metallic implants. Magn Reson Med, 2001;45:724-727.
19. Joseph PM, Atlas SW. Artefacts. In Atlas SW ed. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine, 1st edn Philadelphia, U.S.A.: Lippincott-Raven, 1996; 149-177.
20. Augustiny N, von Schulthess GK, Meier D, Bosiger P. MR imaging of large nonferromagnetic metallic implants at 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 1987;11:678-683.