Influence of sequence type on the extent of the susceptibility artifact in MRI - A shoulder specimen study after suture anchor repair;Abhängigkeit der artefaktgröße vom sequenztyp in der MRT-präparatstudie zur beurteilung der postoperativen schulter nach labrumfixation

RoFo Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Rontgenstrahlen und der Bildgebenden Verfahren

Volumn 176, Issue 9, 2004, Pages 1296-1301

  Herold, Thomas ^a   Caro, W C ^a   Heers, G ^a   Perlick, L ^a   Grifka, J ^a   Feuerbach, S ^a   Nitz, W ^a   Lenhart, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Artifact; Magnetic resonance (MR); Shoulder; Susceptibility

Indexed keywords

METAL;

ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CONTROLLED STUDY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; MEASUREMENT; METAL IMPLANTATION; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARAMETER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHOULDER; SUTURE; SWINE; TECHNIQUE;

ANIMALS; ARTIFACTS; ECHO-PLANAR IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; METALS; SHOULDER; SUTURES; SWINE;

EID: 4544311624     PISSN: 14389029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-813404     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Iannotti JP, Zlatkin MB, Esterhai JL et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder. JBJS 1991; 73A: 17-29
2. Mc Cauley T, Pope C, Jokl P. Normal and abnormal glenoid labrum: Assessment with multiplanar gradient-echo MR imaging. Radiology 1992; 183: 35-37
3. Gusmer PB, Potter H, Schatz AJ et al. Labral injuries: Accuracy of detection with unenhanced MR imaging of the shoulder. Radiology 1996; 200: 519-524
4. Vahlensieck M. MRI of the shoulder. Eur Radiol 2000; 10: 242-249
5. Kreitner KF, Grebe P, Kersjes W et al. Einsatzmöglichkeiten der MR-Arthrographie bei Erkrankungen des Schultergelenkes. Fortschr Röntgenstr 1994; 160 (2): 137-142
6. Palmer WE, Brown JH, Rosenthal DI. Labral-ligamentous complex of the shoulder: evaluation with MR arthrography. Radiology 1994; 190 (3): 645-651
7. Bencardino JT, Beltran J, Rosenberg ZS et al. Superior labrum anterior-posterior lesions: diagnosis with MR arthrography of the shoulder. Radiology 2000; 214 (1): 267-271
8. Mäurer J, Rudolph J, Lorenz M et al. Prospektive Studie zum Nachweis von Läsionen des Labrum glenoidale mit der indirekten MR-Arthrographie der Schulter. Fortschr Röntgenstr 1999; 171: 307-312
9. Sommer T, Vahlensieck M, Wallny T et al. Indirekte MR-Arthrographie in der Diagnostik von Läsionen des Labrum glenoidale. Fortschr Röntgenstr 1997; 167 (1): 46-51
10. Sugimoto H, Zuzuki K, Mihara KI et al. MR arthrography of the shoulders after suture-anchor Bankart repair. Radiology 2002; 224: 105-111
11. Wagner S, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB et al. Schoulder instability: Accuracy of MR imaging performed after surgery in depicting recurrent injury-initial findings. Radiology 2002; 222: 196-203
12. Owen RS, Iannotti JP, Kneeland JB et al. Shoulder after surgery: MR imaging with surgical validation. Radiology 1993; 186: 443
13. Lenhart M, Voelk M, Manke C et al. Stent appearance at contrast-enhanced MR angiography: in vitro examination with 14 stents. Radiology 2000; 217 (1): 173-178
14. Rudisch A, Kremser C, Peer S et al. Metallic artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with spinal fusion. A comparison of implant materials and imaging sequences. Spine 1998; 23: 692-699
15. Fritzsche S, Thull R, Haase A. Reduction of artifacts in magnetic resonance images by using optimized materials for diagnostic devices and implants. Biomed Tech 1994; 39: 42-46
16. Farahani K, Sinha U, Sinha S et al. Effect of field strength on susceptibility artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 1990; 14: 409-413
17. Lüdecke KM, Röschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artifacts in NMR imaging. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1985; 3: 329-343
18. Schenck J. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 1996; 23 (6): 815-850
19. Port JD, Pomper MG. Quantification and minimization of magnetic susceptibility artifacts in GRE images. JCAT 2000; 24 (6): 958-964
20. Thomsen M, Schneider U, Breusch SJ et al. Artefakte und Ferromagnetismus von Metalllegierungen in der Kernspintomographie. Orthopäde 2001; 30: 540-544
21. Czervionke LF, Daniels DL, Wehrli FW et al. Manetic susceptibility artifacts in gradient-recalled echo imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 1988; 9 (6): 1149-1155
22. Petersilge CA, Lewin JS, Duerk JL et al. Optimizing Imaging Parameters for MR Evaluation of the Spine with Titanium Pedicle Screws. AJR 1996; 166: 1213-1218
23. Tartaglino LM, Flanders AE, Vinitski S et al. Metallic artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology 1994; 190: 565-569
24. Peh WCG, Chan JHM. Artifacts in muskuloskeletal magnetic resonance imaging: identification and correction. Skeletal Radiol 2001; 30: 179-191
25. Monu JU, Pope TL Jr, Chabon SJ et al. MR diagnosis of superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) injuries of the glenoid labrum: value of routine imaging without intraarticular injection of contrast material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163 (6): 1425-1429
26. Wutke R, Fellner FA, Fellner C et al. Direct MR arthrography of the shoulder: 2D vs. 3D gradient-echo imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 19 (9): 1183-1191
27. Fellner C, Behr M, Fellner F et al. Artefakte durch Dentallegierungen in der MR-Bildgebung des Temporomandibulargelenks: eine Phantomstudie bei 1,5 T. Fortschr Röntgenstr 1997; 166 (5): 421-428
28. Thal R. A knotless suture anchor: technique for use in arthroscopic bankart repair. Arthroscopy 2001; 17 (2): 213-218
29. Maas R, Kooijman H, Heller M et al. Risiken und Bildartefakte in der MRT (1,5 Tesla) durch metallische Fremdkörper. Fortschr Röntgenst 1987; 147: 365-374
30. Alanen A, Bondestam S, Komu M. Artifacts in MR imaging caused by small quantities of powdered iron. Acta Radiologica 1995; 36: 92-95
31. Bakker CJG, Bhagwandien R, Moerland MA et al. Simulation of susceptibility artifacts in 2D and 3D Courier transform spin-echo and gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1994; 12 (5): 767-774
32. Suh JS, Jeong EK, Shin KH et al. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR 1998; 171: 1207-1213
33. Graf H, Klemm T, Lauer UA et al. Systematik der Artefakte metallischer Gefässprothesen (Stents) in der MRT. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2003; 175: 1711-1719
34. Fautz HP, Buechert M, Husstedt H et al. TSE-Sequence with spin-echo contrast. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2000; 43: 577-582
35. Frahm J, Merboldt KD, Hänicke W. Direct FLASH MR imaging of magnetic field inhomohenities by gradient compensation. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 1988; 6: 474-480
36. Young IR, Cox J, Bryant DJ et al. The benefits of increasing spatial resolution as a means of reducing artifacts due to field inhomogenities. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1988; 6: 585-590