PURPOSE: To determine the best radiofrequency (RF) shimming method for 7 T body imaging that provides sufficient B(1)(+) excitation inside the target region while energy deposition (SAR) and power demands are as low as possible and that does not incorporate anatomy specific electric field information inside the patient models, as this information is not available in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Finite difference time domain (FDTD) simulations were used to evaluate five RF shimming strategies for the pelvis inside a body coil. The results were compared to the theoretical best solution that could be achieved if the electric field inside the patient was known. RESULTS: Most of the RF shimming strategies were successful. However, between the different strategies a factor of two difference in average SAR reduction, a factor of three difference in local maximum SAR reduction, and a factor of 20 difference in power efficiency was observed. Phase matching was found to be the most promising RF shimming method for the body coil used and patient models. CONCLUSION: RF shimming can reduce the SAR and improve power efficiency in an accurate patient model without knowing the electric field. However, choosing the right method is critical to prevent unexpected behavior in local SAR deposition. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To determine the best radiofrequency (RF) shimming method for 7 T body imaging that provides sufficient B(1)(+) excitation inside the target region while energy deposition (SAR) and power demands are as low as possible and that does not incorporate anatomy specific electric field information inside the patient models, as this information is not available in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Finite difference time domain (FDTD) simulations were used to evaluate five RF shimming strategies for the pelvis inside a body coil. The results were compared to the theoretical best solution that could be achieved if the electric field inside the patient was known. RESULTS: Most of the RF shimming strategies were successful. However, between the different strategies a factor of two difference in average SAR reduction, a factor of three difference in local maximum SAR reduction, and a factor of 20 difference in power efficiency was observed. Phase matching was found to be the most promising RF shimming method for the body coil used and patient models. CONCLUSION: RF shimming can reduce the SAR and improve power efficiency in an accurate patient model without knowing the electric field. However, choosing the right method is critical to prevent unexpected behavior in local SAR deposition. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Yacine Noureddine; Andreas K Bitz; Mark E Ladd; Markus Thürling; Susanne C Ladd; Gregor Schaefers; Oliver Kraff Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Yigitcan Eryaman; Bastien Guerin; Boris Keil; Azma Mareyam; Joaquin L Herraiz; Robert K Kosior; Adrian Martin; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Norberto Malpica; Juan A Hernandez-Tamames; Emanuele Schiavi; Elfar Adalsteinsson; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Xiaoping Wu; Sebastian Schmitter; Edward J Auerbach; Steen Moeller; Kâmil Uğurbil; Pierre-François Van de Moortele Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ettore Flavio Meliadò; Alessandro Sbrizzi; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Peter R Luijten; Alexander J E Raaijmakers Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Xiaoxuan He; M Arcan Ertürk; Andrea Grant; Xiaoping Wu; Russell L Lagore; Lance DelaBarre; Yiğitcan Eryaman; Gregor Adriany; Eddie J Auerbach; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Kâmil Uğurbil; Gregory J Metzger Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Xiaoping Wu; Xiaotong Zhang; Jinfeng Tian; Sebastian Schmitter; Brian Hanna; John Strupp; Josef Pfeuffer; Michael Hamm; Dingxin Wang; Juergen Nistler; Bin He; Thomas J Vaughan; Kamil Ugurbil; Pierre-Francois Van de Moortele Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 4.044