PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the maximum temperature (T(max) ) in the head after exposure to a 300 MHz radiofrequency (RF) field induced by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coil using two thermal simulation methods: Pennes' bioheat equation (PBHE) and discrete vasculature (DIVA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electromagnetic field induced in the head by a 7T birdcage coil was simulated using finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) and validated by MRI. The specific absorption rate (SAR) distributions normalized to the 10-gram maximum or the whole-head average were used for PBHE and DIVA simulations. RESULTS: For all cases, the T(max) in PBHE was slightly higher than in DIVA. The T(max) was 37.9-38.4°C, depending on the simulation method or perfusion rate. CONCLUSION: In some situations, RF exposure limited to SAR(max,10g) led to a T(max) higher than allowed by International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) regulations. Therefore, it is advisable to use thermal simulations to evaluate RF safety of MRI. The simulation method used only slightly influenced the observed maximum temperature; the observed temperature with PBHE was higher in all situations. So PBHE is an appropriate method for RF safety assessment of MRI in the head. Using DIVA simulations, it was found unlikely that the body temperature increases significantly due to energy deposited by a head coil under normal circumstances.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the maximum temperature (T(max) ) in the head after exposure to a 300 MHz radiofrequency (RF) field induced by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coil using two thermal simulation methods: Pennes' bioheat equation (PBHE) and discrete vasculature (DIVA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electromagnetic field induced in the head by a 7T birdcage coil was simulated using finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) and validated by MRI. The specific absorption rate (SAR) distributions normalized to the 10-gram maximum or the whole-head average were used for PBHE and DIVA simulations. RESULTS: For all cases, the T(max) in PBHE was slightly higher than in DIVA. The T(max) was 37.9-38.4°C, depending on the simulation method or perfusion rate. CONCLUSION: In some situations, RF exposure limited to SAR(max,10g) led to a T(max) higher than allowed by International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) regulations. Therefore, it is advisable to use thermal simulations to evaluate RF safety of MRI. The simulation method used only slightly influenced the observed maximum temperature; the observed temperature with PBHE was higher in all situations. So PBHE is an appropriate method for RF safety assessment of MRI in the head. Using DIVA simulations, it was found unlikely that the body temperature increases significantly due to energy deposited by a head coil under normal circumstances.
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: Sukhoon Oh; Yeun-Chul Ryu; Giuseppe Carluccio; Christopher T Sica; Christopher M Collins Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: M Cosottini; D Frosini; L Biagi; I Pesaresi; M Costagli; G Tiberi; M Symms; M Tosetti Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Xiaotong Zhang; Sebastian Schmitter; Pierre-Francois Van de Moortele; Jiaen Liu; Bin He Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: H Petra Kok; Johanna Gellermann; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Paul R Stauffer; Jeffrey W Hand; Johannes Crezee Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.914