OBJECTIVES: Radio frequency (RF) pulses in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can interact with implanted devices and cause tissue damage. However, there are new devices that can safely perform measurements with liberal MRI conditions such as an RF transmission field B1+rms ≤ 2.0 μT. We investigated whether MRI in this case is limited for these technical reasons. METHODS: We selected typical MRI protocols of six body regions (brain, cervical spine, lumbar spine, knee, liver, heart) using two typical 1.5T MRI scanners. Overall, we adapted 62 sequences to B1+rms conditions and evaluated their diagnostic quality. For this, we measured signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR), and geometric deviation (GD) as quality parameters, using phantom studies. For questionnaire studies, we selected pairs of original and adapted sequences in healthy volunteers. Blinded radiologists rated the images as single sequence rating and in direct comparison. RESULTS: Roughly one-third of the checked sequences were below the B1+rms limit. Here, 56 of the 62 adapted sequences showed at least the same image quality in single ratings. A reduction in SNR and/or CNR was found with 31 sequences and only one sequence with considerably increased GD. Especially, sequences with original high B1+rms values, PD sequences, and sequences of the Siemens knee and heart protocol were difficult to adapt, whereas most TSE and IR sequences had no clinical limitations. CONCLUSION: By limiting the transmission field to B1+rms ≤ 2.0 μT, clinically relevant MR sequences can be adapted with nearly no reduction in image quality. Despite limiting the transmission field, high-quality MR imaging is possible. We could derive strategies for adaptation. KEY POINTS: • Despite limiting the transmission field, high-quality MRI is possible. • We could derive strategies for adapting the sequences to B1+rms≤ 2.0 μT. • This enables high-quality MRI of different body regions for patients with AD.
OBJECTIVES: Radio frequency (RF) pulses in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can interact with implanted devices and cause tissue damage. However, there are new devices that can safely perform measurements with liberal MRI conditions such as an RF transmission field B1+rms ≤ 2.0 μT. We investigated whether MRI in this case is limited for these technical reasons. METHODS: We selected typical MRI protocols of six body regions (brain, cervical spine, lumbar spine, knee, liver, heart) using two typical 1.5T MRI scanners. Overall, we adapted 62 sequences to B1+rms conditions and evaluated their diagnostic quality. For this, we measured signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR), and geometric deviation (GD) as quality parameters, using phantom studies. For questionnaire studies, we selected pairs of original and adapted sequences in healthy volunteers. Blinded radiologists rated the images as single sequence rating and in direct comparison. RESULTS: Roughly one-third of the checked sequences were below the B1+rms limit. Here, 56 of the 62 adapted sequences showed at least the same image quality in single ratings. A reduction in SNR and/or CNR was found with 31 sequences and only one sequence with considerably increased GD. Especially, sequences with original high B1+rms values, PD sequences, and sequences of the Siemens knee and heart protocol were difficult to adapt, whereas most TSE and IR sequences had no clinical limitations. CONCLUSION: By limiting the transmission field to B1+rms ≤ 2.0 μT, clinically relevant MR sequences can be adapted with nearly no reduction in image quality. Despite limiting the transmission field, high-quality MR imaging is possible. We could derive strategies for adaptation. KEY POINTS: • Despite limiting the transmission field, high-quality MRI is possible. • We could derive strategies for adapting the sequences to B1+rms≤ 2.0 μT. • This enables high-quality MRI of different body regions for patients with AD.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active devices; Magnetic resonance imaging; Patient safety
Authors: Subhendra N Sarkar; David C Alsop; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Reed F Busse; Philip M Robson; Neil M Rofsky; David B Hackney Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Eugenia Cabot; Tom Lloyd; Andreas Christ; Wolfgang Kainz; Mark Douglas; Gregg Stenzel; Steve Wedan; Niels Kuster Journal: Bioelectromagnetics Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 2.010
Authors: Subhendra N Sarkar; Efstathios Papavassiliou; David B Hackney; David C Alsop; Ludy C Shih; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Reed F Busse; Susan La Ruche; Rafeeque A Bhadelia Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: S N Sarkar; E Papavassiliou; R Rojas; D L Teich; D B Hackney; R A Bhadelia; J Stormann; R L Alterman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Fritz Wodarg; Jan Herzog; René Reese; Daniela Falk; Markus O Pinsker; Frank Steigerwald; Olav Jansen; Günther Deuschl; H Maximillian Mehdorn; Jens Volkmann Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Alexander P Cole; Fiona M Fennessy; Timothy Clinton; Pedro Lopes Da Frota Moreira; Mariana Costa Bernardes; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Deepa Krishnaswamy; Andriy Fedorov; Daniel A Wollin; Bjoern Langbein; Nicola Frego; Muhieddine Labban; Joy S Badaoui; Steven L Chang; Logan G Briggs; Junichi Tokuda; Alessandro Ambrosi; Alex Kirkham; Mark Emberton; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Caroline M Moore; Clare Allen; Clare M Tempany Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 7.034