Mark E Ladd1. 1. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. mark.ladd@uni-duisburg-essen.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To expatiate on the possible advantages and disadvantages of high magnetic field strengths for magnetic resonance imaging and, in particular, for magnetic resonance angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: A review of the available literature is given, presenting many of the advantages and disadvantages of imaging at higher field strengths. Focus is put on imaging at 3 to 7 T. Early results at 7 T are presented; these results indicate that several of the angiographic techniques commonly used at lower field strengths show promise for improvement by taking advantage of the higher signal and susceptibility sensitivity at 7 T. CONCLUSIONS: The drive toward higher field strengths, both for the purpose of fundamental research and for clinical diagnostic imaging, is likely to continue. New applications using the unique properties of high field strength will almost certainly emerge as researchers gain more experience. The ultimate limiting factor is likely to be the physiological effects at high field strengths. However, this limit seems to lie at field strengths higher than 7 T because early experience shows good tolerance of 7 T examinations.
OBJECTIVE: To expatiate on the possible advantages and disadvantages of high magnetic field strengths for magnetic resonance imaging and, in particular, for magnetic resonance angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: A review of the available literature is given, presenting many of the advantages and disadvantages of imaging at higher field strengths. Focus is put on imaging at 3 to 7 T. Early results at 7 T are presented; these results indicate that several of the angiographic techniques commonly used at lower field strengths show promise for improvement by taking advantage of the higher signal and susceptibility sensitivity at 7 T. CONCLUSIONS: The drive toward higher field strengths, both for the purpose of fundamental research and for clinical diagnostic imaging, is likely to continue. New applications using the unique properties of high field strength will almost certainly emerge as researchers gain more experience. The ultimate limiting factor is likely to be the physiological effects at high field strengths. However, this limit seems to lie at field strengths higher than 7 T because early experience shows good tolerance of 7 T examinations.
Authors: Kai Nassenstein; Stephan Orzada; Lars Haering; Andreas Czylwik; Christoph Jensen; Thomas Schlosser; Oliver Bruder; Mark E Ladd; Stefan Maderwald Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Valerie C Anderson; Ian J Tagge; Xin Li; Joseph F Quinn; Jeffrey A Kaye; Dennis N Bourdette; Rebecca I Spain; Louis P Riccelli; Manoj K Sammi; Charles S Springer; William D Rooney Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: S Gruber; L Minarikova; K Pinker; O Zaric; M Chmelik; B Strasser; P Baltzer; T Helbich; S Trattnig; W Bogner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kai Nassenstein; Stephan Orzada; Lars Haering; Andreas Czylwik; Michael Zenge; Holger Eberle; Thomas Schlosser; Oliver Bruder; Edgar Müller; Mark E Ladd; Stefan Maderwald Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Elke R Gizewski; Stefan Maderwald; Jennifer Linn; Benjamin Dassinger; Katja Bochmann; Michael Forsting; Mark E Ladd Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Hendrik Mattern; Alessandro Sciarra; Frank Godenschweger; Daniel Stucht; Falk Lüsebrink; Georg Rose; Oliver Speck Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Meredith Metcalf; Duan Xu; Darin T Okuda; Lucas Carvajal; Radhika Srinivasan; Douglas A C Kelley; Pratik Mukherjee; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel B Vigneron; Daniel Pelletier Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Janine M Lupo; Suchandrima Banerjee; Kathryn E Hammond; Douglas A C Kelley; Duan Xu; Susan M Chang; Daniel B Vigneron; Sharmila Majumdar; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 2.546