PURPOSE: To use electromagnetic (EM) simulations to study the effects of body type, landmark position, and radiofrequency (RF) body coil type on peak local specific absorption rate (SAR) in 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Numerically computed peak local SAR for four human body models (HBMs) in three landmark positions (head, heart, pelvic) were compared for a high-pass birdcage and a transverse electromagnetic 3T body coil. Local SAR values were normalized to the IEC whole-body average SAR limit of 2.0 W/kg for normal scan mode. RESULTS: Local SAR distributions were highly variable. Consistent with previous reports, the peak local SAR values generally occurred in the neck-shoulder area, near rungs, or between tissues of greatly differing electrical properties. The HBM type significantly influenced the peak local SAR, with stockier HBMs, extending extremities towards rungs, displaying the highest SAR. There was also a trend for higher peak SAR in the head-centric and heart-centric positions. The impact of the coil types studied was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The large variability in peak local SAR indicates the need to include more than one HBM or landmark position when evaluating safety of body coils. It is recommended that an HBM with arms near the rungs be included to create physically realizable high-SAR scenarios.
PURPOSE: To use electromagnetic (EM) simulations to study the effects of body type, landmark position, and radiofrequency (RF) body coil type on peak local specific absorption rate (SAR) in 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Numerically computed peak local SAR for four human body models (HBMs) in three landmark positions (head, heart, pelvic) were compared for a high-pass birdcage and a transverse electromagnetic 3T body coil. Local SAR values were normalized to the IEC whole-body average SAR limit of 2.0 W/kg for normal scan mode. RESULTS: Local SAR distributions were highly variable. Consistent with previous reports, the peak local SAR values generally occurred in the neck-shoulder area, near rungs, or between tissues of greatly differing electrical properties. The HBM type significantly influenced the peak local SAR, with stockier HBMs, extending extremities towards rungs, displaying the highest SAR. There was also a trend for higher peak SAR in the head-centric and heart-centric positions. The impact of the coil types studied was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The large variability in peak local SAR indicates the need to include more than one HBM or landmark position when evaluating safety of body coils. It is recommended that an HBM with arms near the rungs be included to create physically realizable high-SAR scenarios.
Authors: J T Vaughan; G Adriany; C J Snyder; J Tian; T Thiel; L Bolinger; H Liu; L DelaBarre; K Ugurbil Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Zhangwei Wang; James C Lin; Weihua Mao; Wanzhan Liu; Michael B Smith; Christopher M Collins Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Bob van den Bergen; Christiaan C Stolk; Jan Bouwe van den Berg; Jan J W Lagendijk; Cornelis A T Van den Berg Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-01-30 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ulrich Katscher; Tobias Voigt; Christian Findeklee; Peter Vernickel; Kay Nehrke; Olaf Dössel Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 10.048
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: Hanno Homann; Ingmar Graesslin; Holger Eggers; Kay Nehrke; Peter Vernickel; Ulrich Katscher; Olaf Dössel; Peter Börnert Journal: MAGMA Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Bu S Park; Brent McCright; Leonardo M Angelone; Amir Razjouyan; Sunder S Rajan Journal: IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.006
Authors: Bu S Park; Amir Razjouyan; Leonardo M Angelone; Brent McCright; Sunder S Rajan Journal: IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.006