+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Image distortion and artifacts caused by the use of a titanium aneurism clip in 1.5 tesla- and 3 tesla-magnetic resonance imaging: effect on 60cobalt stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning



Image distortion and artifacts caused by the use of a titanium aneurism clip in 1.5 tesla- and 3 tesla-magnetic resonance imaging: effect on 60cobalt stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning



Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 70(6): 534-541



In gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery (GKSRS) treatment planning, 1.5 tesla (T)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is normally used to identify the target lesion. Image artifacts and distortion arise in MRI if a titanium clip is surgically implanted in the brain to treat cerebral aneurysm. 3-T MRI scanners, which are increasingly being adopted, provide imaging of anatomic structures with better clinical usefulness than 1.5-T MRI machines. We investigated signal defects and image distortions both close to and more distant from the titanium clip in 1.5-T and 3-T MRI. Two kinds of phantoms were scanned using 1.5-T and 3-T MRI. Acquisitions with and without the clip were performed under the same scan parameters. No difference was observed between 1.5 T and 3 T in local decrease of signal intensity; however, image distortion was observed at 20 mm from the clip in 3 T. Over the whole region, the distortions caused by the clip were less than 0.3 mm and 1.6 mm under 1.5-T and 3-T MRI, respectively. The geometric accuracy of 1.5-T MRI was better than 3-T MRI and thus better for GKSRS treatment planning. 3-T MRI, however, appears less suitable for use in treatment planning.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053683038

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24953318

DOI: 10.6009/jjrt.2014_jsrt_70.6.534


Related references

Image artifacts on prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla. Academic Radiology 20(8): 1041-1047, 2013

Optimal imaging parameters and the advantage of cerebrospinal fluid flow image using time-spatial labeling inversion pulse at 3 tesla magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of image quality for 1.5 tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 70(12): 1439-1444, 2015

Optimal Imaging Parameters and the Advantage of Renal Artery Image Using Time-spatial Labeling Inversion Pulse at 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison of Image Quality for 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 72(11): 1113-1121, 2017

Geometric accuracy of 3D coordinates of the Leksell stereotactic skull frame in 1.5 Tesla- and 3.0 Tesla-magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison of three different fixation screw materials. Journal of Radiation Research 55(6): 1184-1191, 2015

7.0-Tesla Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of granulomatous meningoencephalitis in a Maltese dog: a comparison with 0.2 and 1.5-Tesla. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 71(11): 1545-1548, 2010

Development of a geometrically accurate imaging protocol at 3 Tesla MRI for stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning. Physics in Medicine and Biology 55(22): 6601-6615, 2011

Rapid parametric mapping of the longitudinal relaxation time T1 using two-dimensional variable flip angle magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla, 3 Tesla, and 7 Tesla. Plos One 9(3): E91318, 2015

Options for the reduction of magnetic susceptibility artifacts caused by implanted microchips in 0.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Tierarztliche Praxis. Ausgabe K, Kleintiere/Heimtiere 43(2): 83-92, 2015

Interobserver variability of 3.0-tesla and 1.5-tesla magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography fusion image-based post-implant dosimetry of prostate brachytherapy. Journal of Radiation Research 2019, 2019

Quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifacts caused by neurosurgical biomaterials: comparison of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 Tesla magnetic fields. Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica 45(8): 395-8; Discussion 398-9, 2005

Interaction of metallic neurosurgical implants with magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla as a cause of image distortion and of hazardous movement of the implant. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 91(2): 109-115, 1989

Clinical Benefit of 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging Rescanning in Patients With Focal Epilepsy and Negative 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Revista de Investigacion Clinica; Organo del Hospital de Enfermedades de la Nutricion 68(3): 112-118, 2017

The diagnostic performance of non-contrast 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (3-T MRI) versus 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance arthrography (1.5-T MRA) in femoro-acetabular impingement. European Journal of Radiology 88: 109-116, 2017

Reliability of stereotactic coordinates of 1.5-tesla and 3-tesla MRI in radiosurgery and functional neurosurgery. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 55(3): 136-141, 2014

Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas at 3.0 tesla: qualitative and quantitative comparison with 1.5 tesla. Investigative Radiology 41(2): 175-180, 2006