Imaging of Soft Tissues Adjacent to Orthopedic Hardware: Comparison of 3-T and 1.5-T MRI

Abstract

Optimizing image acquisition parameters in this phantom model resulted in similar quantitative susceptibility artifact at 3 T and 1.5 T and better qualitative images at 3 T than at 1.5 T.

Metal artifact suppression at the hip: diagnostic performance at 3.0 T versus 1.5 Tesla

“…In order to retain a high-resolution image while at the same time generating smaller geometric distortion artifacts in 3.0 T MRI, we optimized our pulse sequences by increasing the readout bandwidth and reducing the echo time [12,21,22].…”

Metal artefact reduction in MRI at both 1.5 and 3.0 T using slice encoding for metal artefact correction and view angle tilting

“…This study demonstrated that VAT and SEMAC-VAT, previously utilized at 1.5 T, 16 can be adapted to 3.0 T with similar success. Farrelly et al 20 found, in a phantom model, reductions in artefact severity with longer readout bandwidths with better overall image quality at 3.0 T. In addition to bandwidth considerations, previous work on improving MRI around metal implants has also focused on VAT techniques originally described by Cho et al 13 Kolind et al 21 also described a VAT SE sequence utilizing high RF and readout bandwidths. This sequence was referred to as a "metal artefact reduction sequence".…”

Metal artefact suppression at 3 T MRI: comparison of MAVRIC-SL with conventional fast spin echo sequences in patients with Hip joint arthroplasty

“…Newer developments in implant metal composition and dedicated artefact suppressing MRI sequences have led to a reduction of artefacts [7][8][9][10][11]. Efforts to apply artefact-reducing techniques in a clinical setting have focused on 1.5 T-scanners [12], since it is known that metal artefacts are aggravated with higher field strength [13]. MRI scanners operating at 3 T, however, are increasingly replacing 1.5 T MRIs and create a demand for feasible artefact reduction also at higher field strength.…”