C Frahm1, H B Gehl, U H Melchert, H D Weiss. 1. Medizinische Universität zu Lübeck, Institut für Radiologie, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For two types of passively visualizable magnetic resonance (MR)-compatible needles, the size of susceptibility artifacts was investigated at 0.2 and 1.5 Tesla (T) and assessed regarding their suitability for needle visualization. METHODS: Phantom trials were performed using T1-weighted spin echo (SE), turbospin echo (TSE) and gradient echo (GE) sequences and different angles beta between the needles and the main magnetic field (B0). RESULTS: Depending on the needle angle beta and the applied pulse sequence, we found artifact diameters of 0-9.7 mm employing SE, of 1.7-9.4 mm employing TSE, and of 1.4-20.6 mm employing GE at 1.5 T. At 0.2 T, we found artifact diameters of 0-5.7 mm employing SE, of 0-6.3 mm employing TSE, and of 0-11.3 mm employing GE. CONCLUSION: Comparing artifact sizes at 1. 5 T and 0.2 T, low field strength is superior for passive visualization of the needles tested-especially if GE imaging is performed.
PURPOSE: For two types of passively visualizable magnetic resonance (MR)-compatible needles, the size of susceptibility artifacts was investigated at 0.2 and 1.5 Tesla (T) and assessed regarding their suitability for needle visualization. METHODS: Phantom trials were performed using T1-weighted spin echo (SE), turbospin echo (TSE) and gradient echo (GE) sequences and different angles beta between the needles and the main magnetic field (B0). RESULTS: Depending on the needle angle beta and the applied pulse sequence, we found artifact diameters of 0-9.7 mm employing SE, of 1.7-9.4 mm employing TSE, and of 1.4-20.6 mm employing GE at 1.5 T. At 0.2 T, we found artifact diameters of 0-5.7 mm employing SE, of 0-6.3 mm employing TSE, and of 0-11.3 mm employing GE. CONCLUSION: Comparing artifact sizes at 1. 5 T and 0.2 T, low field strength is superior for passive visualization of the needles tested-especially if GE imaging is performed.
Authors: P R Mueller; D D Stark; J F Simeone; S Saini; R J Butch; R R Edelman; J Wittenberg; J T Ferrucci Journal: Radiology Date: 1986-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P F New; B R Rosen; T J Brady; F S Buonanno; J P Kistler; C T Burt; W S Hinshaw; J H Newhouse; G M Pohost; J M Taveras Journal: Radiology Date: 1983-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christina E Saikus; Kanishka Ratnayaka; Israel M Barbash; Jessica H Colyer; Ozgur Kocaturk; Anthony Z Faranesh; Robert J Lederman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Stephan Zangos; Theodor Vetter; Frank Huebner; Montu Tuwari; Florian Mayer; Katrin Eichler; M-L Hansmann; A Wetter; C Herzog; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-12-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S Zangos; K Eichler; A Wetter; T Lehnert; R Hammerstingl; T Diebold; P Reichel; C Herzog; M-L Hansmann; M G Mack; T J Vogl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-07-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: F Streitparth; T Walter; U Wonneberger; S Chopra; F Wichlas; M Wagner; K G Hermann; B Hamm; U Teichgräber Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Vanessa Franziska Schmidt; Federica Arnone; Olaf Dietrich; Max Seidensticker; Marco Armbruster; Jens Ricke; Philipp Maximilian Kazmierczak Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 4.379