Brian J Lee1,2, Ronald D Watkins1, Chen-Ming Chang1,3, Craig S Levin1,4,5,6. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 3. Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 4. Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 5. Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 6. Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance-compatible medical devices operate within the MR environment while benefitting from the superior anatomic information of MRI. Avoiding electromagnetic interference between such instrumentation and the MR system is crucial. In this work, various shielding configurations for positron emission tomography (PET) detectors were studied and analyzed regarding radiofrequency (RF) shielding effectiveness and gradient-induced eddy current performances. However, the results of this work apply to shielding considerations for any MR-compatible devices. METHODS: Six shielding enclosure configurations with various thicknesses, patterns, and materials were designed: solid and segmented copper, phosphor bronze mesh (PBM), and carbon fiber composite (CFC). A series of tests was performed on RF shielding effectiveness and the gradient-induced eddy current. RESULTS: For the shielding effectiveness, the solid copper with various thickness and PBM configurations yield significantly better shielding effectiveness (>15 dB) compared with CFC and segmented configurations. For the gradient-induced eddy current performance, the solid copper shielding configurations with different thicknesses showed significantly worse results, up to a factor of 3.89 dB, compared with the segmented copper, PBM, and the CFC configurations. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the RF shielding effectiveness and the gradient-induced eddy current artifacts of several shielding designs, and only the PBM showed positive outcomes for both aspects. Magn Reson Med 79:1745-1752, 2018.
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance-compatible medical devices operate within the MR environment while benefitting from the superior anatomic information of MRI. Avoiding electromagnetic interference between such instrumentation and the MR system is crucial. In this work, various shielding configurations for positron emission tomography (PET) detectors were studied and analyzed regarding radiofrequency (RF) shielding effectiveness and gradient-induced eddy current performances. However, the results of this work apply to shielding considerations for any MR-compatible devices. METHODS: Six shielding enclosure configurations with various thicknesses, patterns, and materials were designed: solid and segmented copper, phosphor bronze mesh (PBM), and carbon fiber composite (CFC). A series of tests was performed on RF shielding effectiveness and the gradient-induced eddy current. RESULTS: For the shielding effectiveness, the solid copper with various thickness and PBM configurations yield significantly better shielding effectiveness (>15 dB) compared with CFC and segmented configurations. For the gradient-induced eddy current performance, the solid copper shielding configurations with different thicknesses showed significantly worse results, up to a factor of 3.89 dB, compared with the segmented copper, PBM, and the CFC configurations. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the RF shielding effectiveness and the gradient-induced eddy current artifacts of several shielding designs, and only the PBM showed positive outcomes for both aspects. Magn Reson Med 79:1745-1752, 2018.
Authors: R B Slates; K Farahani; Y Shao; P K Marsden; J Taylor; P E Summers; S Williams; J Beech; S R Cherry Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ariel Roguin; Menekhem M Zviman; Glenn R Meininger; E Rene Rodrigues; Timm M Dickfeld; David A Bluemke; Albert Lardo; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Henry R Halperin Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-07-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Brian J Lee; Alexander M Grant; Chen-Ming Chang; Ronald D Watkins; Gary H Glover; Craig S Levin Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Woutjan Branderhorst; Bart R Steensma; Casper Beijst; Erik R Huijing; Cezar Alborahal; Edwin Versteeg; Bjoern Weissler; David Schug; Pierre Gebhardt; Nicolas Gross-Weege; Florian Mueller; Karl Krueger; Thomas Dey; Harald Radermacher; Oliver Lips; Jan Lagendijk; Volkmar Schulz; Hugo W A M de Jong; Dennis W J Klomp Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-12-23