Literature DB >> 4059558

MR imaging in patients with metallic implants.

R W Laakman, B Kaufman, J S Han, A D Nelson, M Clampitt, A M O'Block, J R Haaga, R J Alfidi.   

Abstract

A total of 305 magnetic resonance (MR) examinations were performed in 236 patients with metallic implants. Most examinations were performed at 0.3 T. The metallic implants included central nervous system shunting devices, tantalum mesh, surgical wire, skin staples, surgical clips, metallic orthopedic devices, and a few miscellaneous metallic objects. Patients with cardiac pacemakers, electrical implants, prosthetic cardiac valves, and aneurysm clips were excluded from MR examinations. The images were reviewed for evidence of metallic artifact. The conspicuity of artifact was related to the composition, mass, orientation, and position of the metallic object in the body. In most instances, the metallic artifact did not interfere with the interpretation of the image. The patients' records were also reviewed for adverse effects noted by each patient during the MR examination. Only two patients reported discomfort that could possibly have been related to their metallic implants, but in both cases it seemed unlikely that the symptoms were actually related to the imaging process. There were no apparent short-term adverse effects demonstrated in these patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4059558     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.157.3.4059558

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  11 in total

1.  [Effect of oral alloy post and core on magnetic resonance imaging].

Authors:  Yin Fang; Li Xin; Ma Qingyun; Wang Lu; Song Ye
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2014-12

Review 2.  Imaging near orthopedic hardware.

Authors:  Matthew F Koff; Alissa J Burge; Kevin M Koch; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging of intraocular foreign bodies.

Authors:  T H Williamson; F W Smith; J V Forrester
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Using the dGEMRIC technique to evaluate cartilage health in the presence of surgical hardware at 3T: comparison of inversion recovery and saturation recovery approaches.

Authors:  Agnes G d'Entremont; Shannon H Kolind; Burkhard Mädler; David R Wilson; Alexander L MacKay
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of the spine after surgery with or without implant.

Authors:  H Leclet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Medical imaging.

Authors:  L Kreel
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 2.401

7.  Evaluation of magnetic behaviour and in vitro biocompatibility of ferritic PM2000 alloy.

Authors:  M S Flores; G Ciapetti; J L González-Carrasco; M A Montealegre; M Multigner; S Pagani; G Rivero
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.896

8.  MR imaging in infra-, para- and retrosellar mass lesions.

Authors:  K Sartor; M G Karnaze; J D Winthrop; M Gado; F J Hodges
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.804

9.  The association between intracompartmental pressure and skeletal muscle recovery after tibial diaphyseal fractures: an ambispective cohort study.

Authors:  Shengjie Tian; Shimin Chang; Yaogang Lu; Jianhua Zhu; Xuqiang Kong
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2021-05-06

10.  Language Mapping Using T2-Prepared BOLD Functional MRI in the Presence of Large Susceptibility Artifacts-Initial Results in Patients With Brain Tumor and Epilepsy.

Authors:  Jun Hua; Xinyuan Miao; Shruti Agarwal; Chetan Bettegowda; Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa; John Laterra; Peter C M Van Zijl; James J Pekar; Jay J Pillai
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2017-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.