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

AIM To determine the effect of metallic implant positioning on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging artefacts, and to determine the optimal imaging parameters for minimization of metallic artefacts. MATERIALS AND METHODS In a phantom and in three joints with non-ferromagnetic metallic implants imaged at 1.5 and/or at 0.2 T, we examined the influence of the static magnetic field (B(0)) strength and orientation, frequency-encoding direction, and type of imaging sequence on metallic artefacts. RESULTS The impact of artefacts caused by metallic objects depends mainly on the relationship between the anatomy of interest and the orientation of the object relative to the direction of B(0). The main field strength plays a less important role, but its orientation depends on the type of MR imager. CONCLUSION MR artefacts can be easily minimized by optimally positioning patients with metallic implants in the magnet. Knowledge of how this influences MR imaging is helpful in patient selection and guiding limb positioning.

[1]  P. Röschmann,et al.  Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. , 1985, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[2]  M. Komu,et al.  Artifacts in MR imaging caused by small quantities of powdered iron. , 1995, Acta radiologica.

[3]  R R Edelman,et al.  MR of hemorrhage: a new approach. , 1986, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[4]  D B Plewes,et al.  Nonsusceptibility artifacts due to metallic objects in MR imaging , 1995, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[5]  E. Jeong,et al.  Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  G M Bydder,et al.  The benefits of increasing spatial resolution as a means of reducing artifacts due to field inhomogeneities. , 1988, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[7]  Martin G. Pomper,et al.  Quantification and Minimization of Magnetic Susceptibility Artifacts on GRE Images , 2000, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[8]  M A Moerland,et al.  Susceptibility artifacts in 2DFT spin-echo and gradient-echo imaging: the cylinder model revisited. , 1993, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[9]  J. Lewin,et al.  Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  V M Haughton,et al.  Magnetic susceptibility artifacts in gradient-recalled echo MR imaging. , 1988, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[11]  S A Gronemeyer,et al.  Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. , 2000, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[12]  Integral method for numerical simulation of MRI artifacts induced by metallic implants , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[13]  A Constantinesco,et al.  An in vitro study at low field for MR guidance of a biopsy needle. , 1995, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[14]  R. Buxton,et al.  Quantitation of structural distortion of the cervical neural foramina in gradient‐echo MR imaging , 1991, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  D. Meier,et al.  MR Imaging of Large Nonferromagnetic Metallic Implants at 1.5 T , 1987, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[16]  Scott W. Atlas,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine , 1991 .

[17]  Robert Turner,et al.  Functional MRI of the brain. A Report on the SMRM/SMRI workshop held in arlington, virginia june 17–19, 1993 , 1993, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[18]  P Boesiger,et al.  Biopsy needle susceptibility artifacts , 1996, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[19]  E. Melhem,et al.  A comparison of conventional spin-echo and turbo spin-echo imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopedic hardware. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.