OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of metal artifact reduction techniques on dGEMRIC T(1) calculation with surgical hardware present. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined the effect of stainless-steel and titanium hardware on dGEMRIC T(1) maps. We tested two strategies to reduce metal artifact in dGEMRIC: (1) saturation recovery (SR) instead of inversion recovery (IR) and (2) applying the metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS), in a gadolinium-doped agarose gel phantom and in vivo with titanium hardware. T(1) maps were obtained using custom curve-fitting software and phantom ROIs were defined to compare conditions (metal, MARS, IR, SR). RESULTS: A large area of artifact appeared in phantom IR images with metal when T(I) ≤ 700 ms. IR maps with metal had additional artifact both in vivo and in the phantom (shifted null points, increased mean T(1) (+151 % IR ROI(artifact)) and decreased mean inversion efficiency (f; 0.45 ROI(artifact), versus 2 for perfect inversion)) compared to the SR maps (ROI(artifact): +13 % T(1) SR, 0.95 versus 1 for perfect excitation), however, SR produced noisier T(1) maps than IR (phantom SNR: 118 SR, 212 IR). MARS subtly reduced the extent of artifact in the phantom (IR and SR). CONCLUSIONS: dGEMRIC measurement in the presence of surgical hardware at 3T is possible with appropriately applied strategies. Measurements may work best in the presence of titanium and are severely limited with stainless steel. For regions near hardware where IR produces large artifacts making dGEMRIC analysis impossible, SR-MARS may allow dGEMRIC measurements. The position and size of the IR artifact is variable, and must be assessed for each implant/imaging set-up.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of metal artifact reduction techniques on dGEMRIC T(1) calculation with surgical hardware present. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined the effect of stainless-steel and titanium hardware on dGEMRIC T(1) maps. We tested two strategies to reduce metal artifact in dGEMRIC: (1) saturation recovery (SR) instead of inversion recovery (IR) and (2) applying the metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS), in a gadolinium-doped agarose gel phantom and in vivo with titanium hardware. T(1) maps were obtained using custom curve-fitting software and phantom ROIs were defined to compare conditions (metal, MARS, IR, SR). RESULTS: A large area of artifact appeared in phantom IR images with metal when T(I) ≤ 700 ms. IR maps with metal had additional artifact both in vivo and in the phantom (shifted null points, increased mean T(1) (+151 % IR ROI(artifact)) and decreased mean inversion efficiency (f; 0.45 ROI(artifact), versus 2 for perfect inversion)) compared to the SR maps (ROI(artifact): +13 % T(1) SR, 0.95 versus 1 for perfect excitation), however, SR produced noisier T(1) maps than IR (phantom SNR: 118 SR, 212 IR). MARS subtly reduced the extent of artifact in the phantom (IR and SR). CONCLUSIONS: dGEMRIC measurement in the presence of surgical hardware at 3T is possible with appropriately applied strategies. Measurements may work best in the presence of titanium and are severely limited with stainless steel. For regions near hardware where IR produces large artifacts making dGEMRIC analysis impossible, SR-MARS may allow dGEMRIC measurements. The position and size of the IR artifact is variable, and must be assessed for each implant/imaging set-up.