Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifacts Induced by Ocular Prosthesis

Fry, Constance L.; Haik, Barrett G.

doi:10.1016/s0002-9394(14)72915-0

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scans were performed with the prostheses in place. Despite previous reports 34 of MRI signal artifacts from prosthesis, the MR images obtained were not degraded by artifacts, probably because of the absence of electrically conductive metallic pigments from the prosthesis worn by the current subjects. Despite the capability of the current MRI technique to resolve them separately, the SR and LPS EOMs were evaluated as a unit (complex) because of their close anatomic relationship, as described elsewhere.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

Functional Anatomy of the Anophthalmic Socket: Insights from Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Detorakis¹,

Engstrom²,

Straatsma³

et al. 2003

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

Functional Anatomy of the Anophthalmic Socket: Insights from Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Detorakis¹,

Engstrom²,

Straatsma³

et al. 2003

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Susceptibility artifacts can also result from local field inhomogeneities caused by changes in magnetic susceptibility between interfacing tissues 8,9 . One previously published case report details a magnetic susceptibility artifact caused by a methyl‐methacrylate ocular prosthetic in a 2.5‐year‐old girl 10 . The artifact was present on MRI images but not CT and was thought to have occurred because of trace minerals in the paint used to color the prosthetic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifact due to pigmented intraorbital silicone prosthesis

Dees¹,

Knollinger²,

Simmons³

et al. 2012

Veterinary Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of two cases with intracranial disease and pigmented intraorbital prosthetics are presented. A brown prosthetic (Case 1) caused a significant magnetic susceptibility artifact, which necessitated removal to properly image the brain. The artifact observed on MRI images is likely due to ferromagnetic pigments used for coloring. A black prosthetic (Case 2) caused no imaging artifact. The carbon-based pigments used to color the black prosthetic implant do not appear to cause imaging artifact. The pigments currently used to color the brown pigmented orbital prostheses cause significant magnetic susceptibility artifact and may require removal to evaluate the brain and surrounding structures completely.

show abstract

“…Other potential causes of susceptibility artifacts include eyelid or eyebrow tattoos, 10 ferrous intraocular foreign bodies, 11,12 metallic pellets in the eye (Fig. 9), 3 ocular prosthesis, 13 scleral buckle, 14 or dental braces. 9 Patients should be advised to avoid wearing makeup, and a note should be made of any previous eye trauma or surgeries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orbital Artifacts on MRI

Rana

Juniat

Patel

et al. 2023

Ophthalmic Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To describe artifacts on orbital MRI, which led to an incorrect radiology report. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients identified from the orbital databases at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Wisconsin Hospital. Patients who had artifacts on orbital MRI that led to an incorrect radiology report were included. Records were evaluated for age at imaging, gender, MRI sequence, laterality, and location of artifact, radiological characteristics and misdiagnosis, and cause of artifact. Results: Data were collected from 7 patients (3 male) who had a median age of 61 years at the time of imaging. Five artifacts resulted from fat-suppression failure with 4 of these cases misdiagnosed as inflammatory changes and 1 misdiagnosed as neoplastic infiltration. The OD was involved in 4 cases. Six cases were in the inferior orbit region. Conclusions: Fat-suppression failure artifacts may arise in the inferior orbit region and can be mistaken for inflammatory or neoplastic orbital disease. This may prompt additional investigations such as orbital biopsy. Clinicians should be aware of artifacts which can affect orbital MRI and lead to potential misdiagnosis.

show abstract

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifacts Induced by Ocular Prosthesis

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Functional Anatomy of the Anophthalmic Socket: Insights from Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Functional Anatomy of the Anophthalmic Socket: Insights from Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifact due to pigmented intraorbital silicone prosthesis

Orbital Artifacts on MRI

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About