Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of the Spine With Metal Implants|General Safety and Superior Imaging With Titanium

MR imaging for early complications of transpedicular screw fixation

“…As is also true for CT scans, MR scans show blurred images around these screws and the rods, but the local artifacts caused by titanium implants do not interfere with the imaging of the adjacent soft tissues [14]. In one series, the titanium implants of 14 out in 15 patients allowed uncompromised imaging of the spine, with only minimal artifact production, and the titanium implants caused local signal void without the surrounding image deterioration that was characteristic of the stainless steel implants [13]. Ebraheim et al concluded that the use of the titanium implants permitted high-quality MR imaging of the spinal canal contents [2].…”

Intervertebral test spacers and postfusion MRI artifacting: A comparative in vitro study of magnesium versus titanium and carbon fiber reinforced polymers as biomaterials

“…Moreover, MRI is well-suited to demonstrate myelopathies, inflammatory and infectious processes, and any neurodegenerative changes. The MRI-imaging behavior of spinal implants is obviously well-documented in the literature [8,[10][11][12]15,17,20]. However, the aims of previous studies differ in that most focused on determining sequence-related artifact size.…”

“…We selected a matrix of 512 x 512 pixels combined with a field of view (FOV) of 500 mm. The T1w-TSE sequence has been established to produce the best imaging results for implants and the least amount of intrinsic artifacting [3,5,6,[8][9][10]12,20]. Using a current version of DICOM reader software, one author (TE) measured the artifact area on the scan of each of the nine implants six times; 54 individual tracings were recorded and analyzed.…”

The interobserver-validated relevance of intervertebral spacer materials in MRI artifacting

“…The MRI imaging behavior of metallic spinal implants is well documented in the literature [6,8,12,18,19]. However, the aims of the published studies differed in that most focused on determining sequence-related artifact size.…”