Rüdiger Hoffmann1, Hansjörg Rempp2, Frank Eibofner2, David-Emanuel Keßler2, Gunnar Blumenstock3, Jakob Weiß2, Philippe L Pereira4, Konstantin Nikolaou2, Stephan Clasen2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. Ruediger.Hoffmann@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biometry, Eberhard Karls University, Silcherstr. 5, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology, Minimally Invasive Therapies, and Nuclear Medicine, SLK-Kliniken Heilbronn GmbH, Am Gesundbrunnen 20-26, 74078, Heilbronn, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare artefact configuration and diameters in a magnetic resonance (MR)-compatible prototype microwave (MW) applicator and a standard MR-compatible radiofrequency (RF) applicator for MR-guided tumour ablation. METHODS: Both applicators were tested in a phantom study at 1.5T with three sequences: T1-weighted three-dimensional volume interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE), T1-weighted fast low angle shot (FLASH), T2-weighted turbo spin echo (TSE). Applicator orientation to main magnetic field (B0) and slice orientation were varied. Needle tip location error (TLE) was assessed, and artefact diameters were calculated. Influence of imaging parameters on artefacts was assessed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc testing. RESULTS: MW applicator: the shaft artefact diameter measured 2.3 +/- 0.8 mm. Tip artefact diameter and length measured 2.2 ± 0.8 mm and 2.4 ± 1.3 mm, respectively. A prominent oval artefact (diameter: 16.5 +/- 1.8 mm, length: 19.1 +/- 2.5 mm) appeared close to the tip. TLE: - .3 +/- 0.6 mm. RF applicator: shaft and tip diameter measured 8.9 +/- 4.7 mm and 9.0 +/- .0 mm, respectively. TLE: -0.1 +/- 0.8 mm. Minimal artefacts were measured with RF applicator orientation parallel to B0 (P < 0.0001), whereas no such influence was found for MW applicator. For both applicators, significantly large artefacts were measured with T1 FLASH (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The MW applicator's artefact is satisfactory and seems useable for MR-guided ablation procedures. KEY POINTS: MW applicator's artefact appearance is independent of angulation to main magnetic field. MW applicator's prominent distal artefact may increase visibility under MR-guidance. RF and MW applicator's artefacts are precise concerning tip depiction. Largest artefact diameters are measured with T1-weighted fast low angle shot sequence.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare artefact configuration and diameters in a magnetic resonance (MR)-compatible prototype microwave (MW) applicator and a standard MR-compatible radiofrequency (RF) applicator for MR-guided tumour ablation. METHODS: Both applicators were tested in a phantom study at 1.5T with three sequences: T1-weighted three-dimensional volume interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE), T1-weighted fast low angle shot (FLASH), T2-weighted turbo spin echo (TSE). Applicator orientation to main magnetic field (B0) and slice orientation were varied. Needle tip location error (TLE) was assessed, and artefact diameters were calculated. Influence of imaging parameters on artefacts was assessed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc testing. RESULTS: MW applicator: the shaft artefact diameter measured 2.3 +/- 0.8 mm. Tip artefact diameter and length measured 2.2 ± 0.8 mm and 2.4 ± 1.3 mm, respectively. A prominent oval artefact (diameter: 16.5 +/- 1.8 mm, length: 19.1 +/- 2.5 mm) appeared close to the tip. TLE: - .3 +/- 0.6 mm. RF applicator: shaft and tip diameter measured 8.9 +/- 4.7 mm and 9.0 +/- .0 mm, respectively. TLE: -0.1 +/- 0.8 mm. Minimal artefacts were measured with RF applicator orientation parallel to B0 (P < 0.0001), whereas no such influence was found for MW applicator. For both applicators, significantly large artefacts were measured with T1 FLASH (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The MW applicator's artefact is satisfactory and seems useable for MR-guided ablation procedures. KEY POINTS: MW applicator's artefact appearance is independent of angulation to main magnetic field. MW applicator's prominent distal artefact may increase visibility under MR-guidance. RF and MW applicator's artefacts are precise concerning tip depiction. Largest artefact diameters are measured with T1-weighted fast low angle shot sequence.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artefact; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging, interventional; Microwave ablation; Tumour ablation
Authors: John R Leyendecker; Gerald D Dodd; Glenn A Halff; Victor A McCoy; Dacia H Napier; Linda G Hubbard; Kedar N Chintapalli; Shailendra Chopra; W Kenneth Washburn; Robert M Esterl; Francisco G Cigarroa; Ruth E Kohlmeier; Francis E Sharkey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Rüdiger Hoffmann; Christoph Thomas; Hansjörg Rempp; Diethard Schmidt; Philippe L Pereira; Claus D Claussen; Stephan Clasen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christoph Thomas; Hanne Wojtczyk; Hansjörg Rempp; Stephan Clasen; Marius Horger; Christoph von Lassberg; Jan Fritz; Claus D Claussen; Philippe L Pereira Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Antonia Grimm; Moritz Winkelmann; Jakob Weiß; Georg Gohla; Gunnar Blumenstock; Konstantin Nikolaou; Stephan Clasen; Rüdiger Hoffmann Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2019-09-23