Prepolarized magnetic resonance imaging around metal orthopedic implants
Corresponding Author
Ross D. Venook
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
350 Serra Mall, Packard Electrical Engineering Building, Room 063, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9510, USA===Search for more papers by this authorNathaniel I. Matter
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMeena Ramachandran
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSharon E. Ungersma
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorGarry E. Gold
Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorNicholas J. Giori
VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California, USA
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAlbert Macovski
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorGreig C. Scott
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSteven M. Conolly
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Department of Bioengineering, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Ross D. Venook
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
350 Serra Mall, Packard Electrical Engineering Building, Room 063, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9510, USA===Search for more papers by this authorNathaniel I. Matter
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMeena Ramachandran
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSharon E. Ungersma
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorGarry E. Gold
Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorNicholas J. Giori
VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California, USA
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAlbert Macovski
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorGreig C. Scott
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSteven M. Conolly
Magnetic Resonance Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Department of Bioengineering, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
A prepolarized MRI (PMRI) scanner was used to image near metal implants in agar gel phantoms and in in vivo human wrists. Comparison images were made on 1.5- and 0.5-T conventional whole-body systems. The PMRI experiments were performed in a smaller bore system tailored to extremity imaging with a prepolarization magnetic field of 0.4 T and a readout magnetic field of 27–54 mT (1.1–2.2 MHz). Scan parameters were chosen with equal readout gradient strength over a given field of view and matrix size to allow unbiased evaluation of the benefits of lower readout frequency. Results exhibit substantial reduction in metal susceptibility artifacts under PMRI versus conventional scanners. A new artifact quantification technique is also presented, and phantom results confirm that susceptibility artifacts improve as expected with decreasing readout magnetic field using PMRI. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that prepolarized techniques have the potential to provide diagnostic cross-sectional images for postoperative evaluation of patients with metal implants. Magn Reson Med. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
REFERENCES
- 1 Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 1487–1497.
- 2 Eustace S, Goldberg R, Williamson D, Melhem ER, Oladipo O, Yucel EK, Jara H. MR imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopaedic hardware: techniques to minimize susceptibility artefact. Clin Radiol 1997; 52: 589–594.
- 3 Augustiny N, von Schulthess GK, Meier D, Bosiger P. MR imaging of large nonferromagnetic metallic implants at 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1987; 11: 678–683.
- 4 Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ, Janzen DL, MacKay AL, Xiang QS, Masri B. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics 2000; 20: 699–712.
- 5 White LM, Kim JK, Mehta M, Merchant N, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB, Hutchison CR, Gross AE. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology 2000; 215: 254–262.
- 6 Ludeke KM, Roschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1985; 3: 329–343.
- 7 Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 1996; 23: 815–850.
- 8 Graf H, Steidle G, Martirosian P, Lauer UA, Schick F. Metal artifacts caused by gradient switching. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54: 231–234.
- 9 Camacho CR, Plewes DB, Henkelman RM. Nonsusceptibility artifacts due to metallic objects in MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995; 5: 75–88.
- 10 Cho ZH, Kim DJ, Kim YK. Total inhomogeneity correction including chemical shifts and susceptibility by view angle tilting. Med Phys 1988; 15: 7–11.
- 11 Kolind SH, MacKay AL, Munk PL, Xiang QS. Quantitative evaluation of metal artifact reduction techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20: 487–495.
- 12 Butts K, Pauly JM, Gold GE. Reduction of blurring in view angle tilting MRI. Magn Reson Med 2005; 53: 418–424.
- 13 Ramos-Cabrer P, van Duynhoven JPM, Van der Toorn A, Nicolay K. MRI of hip prostheses using single-point methods: in vitro studies towards the artifact-free imaging of individuals with metal implants. Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 22: 1097–1103.
- 14 Sekihara K, Kuroda M, Kohno H. Image restoration from non-uniform magnetic field influence for direct Fourier NMR imaging. Phys Med Biol 1984; 29: 15–24.
- 15 O'Donnell M, Edelstein WA. NMR imaging in the presence of magnetic field inhomogeneities and gradient field nonlinearities. Med Phys 1985; 12: 20–26.
- 16 Jezzard P, Balaban RS. Correction for geometric distortion in echo planar images from B0 field variations. Magn Reson Med 1995; 34: 65–73.
- 17 Skare S, Andersson JLR. Correction of MR image distortions induced by metallic objects using a 3D cubic B-spline basis set: application to stereotactic surgical planning. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54: 169–181.
- 18 Pauchard Y, Smith MR, Mintchev MP. Improving geometric accuracy in the presence of susceptibility difference artifacts produced by metallic implants in magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2005; 24: 1387–1399.
- 19 Viano AM, Gronemeyer SA, Haliloglu M, Hoffer FA. Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 18: 287–295.
- 20 Guermazi A, Miaux Y, Zaim S, Peterfy CG, White D, Genant HK. Metallic artefacts in MR imaging: effects of main field orientation and strength. Clin Radiol 2003; 58: 322–328.
- 21 Farahani K, Sinha U, Sinha S, Chiu LC, Lufkin RB. Effect of field strength on susceptibility artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1990; 14: 409–413.
- 22 Olsrud J, Latt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Bjorkman-Burtscher IM. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: 433–437.
- 23 Macovski A, Conolly S. Novel approaches to low-cost MRI. Magn Reson Med 1993; 30: 221–230.
- 24 Morgan P, Conolly S, Scott G, Macovski A. A readout magnet for prepolarized MRI. Magn Reson Med 1996; 36: 527–536.
- 25 Matter NI, Scott GC, Grafendorfer T, Macovski A, Conolly SM. Rapid polarizing field cycling in magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006; 25: 84–93.
- 26 Chronik BA, Venook RV, Conolly SM, Scott GC. Readout frequency requirements for dedicated prepolarized and hyperpolarized-gas MRI systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Honolulu, HI, USA, 2002. p. 58.
- 27 Albert MS, Cates GD, Driehuys B, Happer W, Saam B, Springer CSJ, Wishnia A. Biological magnetic resonance imaging using laser-polarized 129Xe. Nature 1994; 370: 199–201.
- 28 Middleton H, Black RD, Saam B, Cates GD, Cofer GP, Guenther R, Happer W, Hedlund LW, Johnson GA, Juvan K. MR imaging with hyperpolarized 3He gas. Magn Reson Med 1995; 33: 271–275.
- 29 Johnson GA, Cates G, Chen XJ, Cofer GP, Driehuys B, Happer W, Hedlund LW, Saam B, Shattuck MD, Swartz J. Dynamics of magnetization in hyperpolarized gas MRI of the lung. Magn Reson Med 1997; 38: 66–71.
- 30 Matter NI, Scott GC, Venook RD, Ungersma SE, Grafendorfer T, Macovski A, Conolly SM. 3D Prepolarized MRI with RARE. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Seattle, WA, USA, 2006.
- 31 Bhagwandien R, Moerland MA, Bakker CJ, Beersma R, Lagendijk JJ. Numerical analysis of the magnetic field for arbitrary magnetic susceptibility distributions in 3D. Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 12: 101–107.
- 32 Li S, Williams GD, Frisk TA, Arnold BW, Smith MB. A computer simulation of the static magnetic field distribution in the human head. Magn Reson Med 1995; 34: 268–275.
- 33 Li L, Leigh JS. Quantifying arbitrary magnetic susceptibility distributions with MR. Magn Reson Med 2004; 51: 1077–1082.
- 34 Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R, Magnetic resonance imaging: physical principles and sequence design, 1st ed. New York: Wiley–Liss; 1999.
- 35 Matsuura H, Inoue T, Konno H, Sasaki M, Ogasawara K, Ogawa A. Quantification of susceptibility artifacts produced on high-field magnetic resonance images by various biomaterials used for neurosurgical implants. J Neurosurg 2002; 97: 1472–1475.
- 36 Sofka CM, Potter HG, Figgie M, Laskin R. Magnetic resonance imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 129–135.
- 37 Hennig J, Nauerth A, Friedburg H. RARE imaging: a fast imaging method for clinical MR. Magn Reson Med 1986; 3: 823–833.
- 38 Potter HG, Nestor BJ, Sofka CM, Ho ST, Peters LE, Salvati EA. Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg 2004; 86: 1947–1954.
