Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: Dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 433-437

  Olsrud, Johan ^a   Lätt, Jimmy ^b   Brockstedt, Sara ^b   Romner, Bertil ^a   Björkman Burtscher, Isabella M ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

High field strength; Implant; Metal artifact; MRI; Sequence optimization

Indexed keywords

POLYETHERSULFONE; SILASTIC; STAINLESS STEEL; TITANIUM;

ANEURYSM CLIP; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; BLOOD VESSEL SHUNT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; HUMAN; MAGNETIC FIELD; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION;

ARTIFACTS; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID SHUNTS; INTRACRANIAL ANEURYSM; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; METALS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS;

EID: 24744444958     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20391     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Shellock FG. Metallic neurosurglcal implants: evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating and artifacts at 1.5 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;14:295-299.
2. Ludeke ME, Roschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artifacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1985;3:329-343.
3. Matsuura H, Inoue T, Konno H, Sasaki M, Ogasawara K, Ogawa A. Quantification of susceptibility artifacts produced on high-field magnetic resonance images by various biomaterials used for neurosurgical implants. J Neurosurg 2002;97:1472-1475.
4. Guermazi A, Miaux Y, Zaim S, Peterfy CG, White D, Genant HK. Metallic artifacts in MR imaging: effects of main field orientation and strength. Clin Radiol 2003;58:322-328.
5. Christopher R, Camacho BSE, Plewes DB, Henkelmann RM. Non-susceptibility artifacts due to metallic objects in MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995;5:75-88.
6. Young IR, Cox IJ, Bryand 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.
7. Port JP, Pomper MG. Quantification and minimization of magnetic susceptibility artifacts on GRE images. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000;24:958-964.
8. Stollberger R, Riath J, Seibert F, Ebner F. Optimized MR sequences decrease implant artifacts. Diagnostic Imaging Eur 2002:48-54.
9. Burtscher IM, Owman T, Romner B, Ståhlberg F, Holtås S. Aneurysm clip MR artifacts: titanium versus stainless steel and influence of imaging parameters. Acta Radiol 1998;39:70-76.
10. Viano AM, Gronemeyer SA, Haliloglu M, Hoffer FA. Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging 2000;18:287-295.
11. Klemm T, Duda S, Machann J, et al. MR imaging in the presence of vascular stents: a systematic assessment of artifacts for various stent orientations, sequence types and field strengths. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:606-615.
12. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). F2119-01: Standard test method for evaluation of MR image artifacts from passive implants. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. PA, 2001.
13. Shellock FG, Tkach JA, Ruggieri PM, Masaryk T, Rasmussen P. Aneurysm clips: evaluation of magnetic field interactions and translational attraction using "long-bore" and "short-bore" 3.0-Tesla MR systems. Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:463-471.
14. Shellock FG, ed. Reference manual for magnetic resonance safety. 2003 edition. Salt Lake City: Amirsys; 2003. 456 p.