PURPOSE: To compare the MRI-related heating per unit of specific absorption rate (SAR) profile of a conductive implant between two 1.5-Tesla/64 MHz MR systems using a transmit/receive (t/r) head coil configuration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) leads were configured within a gel-filled phantom of the human head and torso. Temperature variation at each of four contacts of the bilaterally-placed leads was monitored using fluoroptic thermometry. MRI was performed using the t/r head coils of two different-generation 1.5-Tesla MR systems from the same manufacturer. Temperature changes were normalized to SAR values for the head (DeltaT/SAR-H), and the slope of this DeltaT/SAR-H by time relationship was compared between the two scanners. RESULTS: The DeltaT/SAR-H for the implant ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 times higher on one MR system as compared to the other (P < 0.01) depending on the measurement site. CONCLUSION: The findings support previous observations that console-reported SAR does not constitute a reliable index of heating for elongated, conductive implants, such as the DBS hardware system tested. In contrast to our previous findings using a t/r body coil, the data presented here reveal marked differences between two MR systems using t/r head coils (the coil configuration was consistent with the implant manufacturer's imaging guidelines). J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2006. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare the MRI-related heating per unit of specific absorption rate (SAR) profile of a conductive implant between two 1.5-Tesla/64 MHz MR systems using a transmit/receive (t/r) head coil configuration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) leads were configured within a gel-filled phantom of the human head and torso. Temperature variation at each of four contacts of the bilaterally-placed leads was monitored using fluoroptic thermometry. MRI was performed using the t/r head coils of two different-generation 1.5-Tesla MR systems from the same manufacturer. Temperature changes were normalized to SAR values for the head (DeltaT/SAR-H), and the slope of this DeltaT/SAR-H by time relationship was compared between the two scanners. RESULTS: The DeltaT/SAR-H for the implant ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 times higher on one MR system as compared to the other (P < 0.01) depending on the measurement site. CONCLUSION: The findings support previous observations that console-reported SAR does not constitute a reliable index of heating for elongated, conductive implants, such as the DBS hardware system tested. In contrast to our previous findings using a t/r body coil, the data presented here reveal marked differences between two MR systems using t/r head coils (the coil configuration was consistent with the implant manufacturer's imaging guidelines). J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2006. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Leonardo M Angelone; Jyrki Ahveninen; John W Belliveau; Giorgio Bonmassar Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Nikos Makris; Leonardo Angelone; Seann Tulloch; Scott Sorg; Jonathan Kaiser; David Kennedy; Giorgio Bonmassar Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: M Hasegawa; K Miyata; Y Abe; T Ishii; T Ishigami; K Ohtani; E Nagai; T Ohyama; Y Umekawa; S Nakabayashi Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Laleh Golestanirad; Maria Ida Iacono; Boris Keil; Leonardo M Angelone; Giorgio Bonmassar; Michael D Fox; Todd Herrington; Elfar Adalsteinsson; Cristen LaPierre; Azma Mareyam; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Krzysztof R Gorny; Michael F Presti; Stephan J Goerss; Sun C Hwang; Dong-Pyo Jang; Inyong Kim; Hoon-Ki Min; Yunhong Shu; Christopher P Favazza; Kendall H Lee; Matt A Bernstein Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: David W Carmichael; John S Thornton; Roman Rodionov; Rachel Thornton; Andrew McEvoy; Philip J Allen; Louis Lemieux Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.813