Luis B Gutierrez1, Bao H Do2, Garry E Gold3, Brian A Hargreaves3, Kevin M Koch4, Pauline W Worters5, Kathryn J Stevens6. 1. Department of Radiology, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Radiology, VA Palo Alto, Palo Alto, California. 3. Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Grant Building S062A, Stanford, CA 94305. 4. Department of Biophysics, Medical College Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 5. GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, California. 6. Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Grant Building S062A, Stanford, CA 94305. Electronic address: kate.stevens@stanford.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of multiacquisition with variable resonance image combination selective (MAVRIC SL) with conventional two-dimensional fast spin-echo (2D-FSE) magnetic resonance (MR) techniques at 3T in imaging patients with a variety of metallic implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one 3T MR studies were obtained in 19 patients with different types of metal implants. Paired MAVRIC SL and 2D-FSE sequences were reviewed by two radiologists and compared for in-plane and through-plane metal artifact, visualization of the bone implant interface and surrounding soft tissues, blurring, and overall image quality using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test. The area of artifact on paired images was measured and compared using a paired Wilcoxon signed rank test. Changes in patient management resulting from MAVRIC SL imaging were documented. RESULTS: Significantly less in-plane and through-plane artifact was seen with MAVRIC SL, with improved visualization of the bone-implant interface and surrounding soft tissues, and superior overall image quality (P = .0001). Increased blurring was seen with MAVRIC SL (P = .0016). MAVRIC SL significantly decreased the image artifact compared to 2D-FSE (P = .0001). Inclusion of MAVRIC SL to the imaging protocol determined the need for surgery or type of surgery in five patients and ruled out the need for surgery in 13 patients. In three patients, the area of interest was well seen on both MAVRIC SL and 2D-FSE images, so the addition of MAVRIC had no effect on patient management. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging around metal implants with MAVRIC SL at 3T significantly improved image quality and decreased image artifact compared to conventional 2D-FSE imaging techniques and directly impacted patient management.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of multiacquisition with variable resonance image combination selective (MAVRIC SL) with conventional two-dimensional fast spin-echo (2D-FSE) magnetic resonance (MR) techniques at 3T in imaging patients with a variety of metallic implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one 3T MR studies were obtained in 19 patients with different types of metal implants. Paired MAVRIC SL and 2D-FSE sequences were reviewed by two radiologists and compared for in-plane and through-plane metal artifact, visualization of the bone implant interface and surrounding soft tissues, blurring, and overall image quality using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test. The area of artifact on paired images was measured and compared using a paired Wilcoxon signed rank test. Changes in patient management resulting from MAVRIC SL imaging were documented. RESULTS: Significantly less in-plane and through-plane artifact was seen with MAVRIC SL, with improved visualization of the bone-implant interface and surrounding soft tissues, and superior overall image quality (P = .0001). Increased blurring was seen with MAVRIC SL (P = .0016). MAVRIC SL significantly decreased the image artifact compared to 2D-FSE (P = .0001). Inclusion of MAVRIC SL to the imaging protocol determined the need for surgery or type of surgery in five patients and ruled out the need for surgery in 13 patients. In three patients, the area of interest was well seen on both MAVRIC SL and 2D-FSE images, so the addition of MAVRIC had no effect on patient management. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging around metal implants with MAVRIC SL at 3T significantly improved image quality and decreased image artifact compared to conventional 2D-FSE imaging techniques and directly impacted patient management.
Authors: K M Koch; A C Brau; W Chen; G E Gold; B A Hargreaves; M Koff; G C McKinnon; H G Potter; K F King Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tao Ai; Abraham Padua; Frank Goerner; Mathias Nittka; Zbigniew Gugala; Siddharth Jadhav; Miguel Trelles; Raleigh F Johnson; Ronald W Lindsey; Xiaoming Li; Val M Runge Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Catherine L Hayter; Matthew F Koff; Parina Shah; Kevin M Koch; Theodore T Miller; Hollis G Potter Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Brian A Hargreaves; Pauline W Worters; Kim Butts Pauly; John M Pauly; Kevin M Koch; Garry E Gold Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Brian A Hargreaves; Weitian Chen; Wenmiao Lu; Marcus T Alley; Garry E Gold; Anja C S Brau; John M Pauly; Kim Butts Pauly Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alissa J Burge; Gabrielle P Konin; Jennifer L Berkowitz; Bin Lin; Matthew F Koff; Hollis G Potter Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Kelly C Zochowski; Mauro A Miranda; Jacky Cheung; Erin C Argentieri; Bin Lin; S Sivaram Kaushik; Alissa J Burge; Hollis G Potter; Matthew F Koff Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Philip K Lee; Daehyun Yoon; Jesse K Sandberg; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Brian A Hargreaves Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Mikael Sonesson; Fahad Al-Qabandi; Sven Månsson; Salem Abdulraheem; Lars Bondemark; Kristina Hellén-Halme Journal: Imaging Sci Dent Date: 2021-01-29