Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2005.02.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Radio frequency versus susceptibility effects of small conductive implants — a systematic MRI study on aneurysm clips at 1.5 and 3 T

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
20
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These artifacts are more pronounced on GE imaging than on TSE imaging due to the lack of the 180°refocusing pulse and increase with echo time due to the continued decay of transverse magnetization [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. These findings have also been seen in our study when comparing susceptibility artifacts at a main magnetic field strength of 1.5 T and 3.0 T in various MR pulse sequences.…”
Section: In Vitro Findingssupporting
confidence: 79%
“…These artifacts are more pronounced on GE imaging than on TSE imaging due to the lack of the 180°refocusing pulse and increase with echo time due to the continued decay of transverse magnetization [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. These findings have also been seen in our study when comparing susceptibility artifacts at a main magnetic field strength of 1.5 T and 3.0 T in various MR pulse sequences.…”
Section: In Vitro Findingssupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Understanding the origin of artefacts introduced into NMR images by conductors and susceptibility differences is of interest for both materials and medical imaging. [78,79] For example, magnetic susceptibility differences due to blood oxygen levels are responsible for the contrast observed in functional magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, metal suppression techniques only address susceptibility artefacts, leaving RF-induced artefacts an unsolved problem. Taking into account, lastly, the trend towards stronger static magnetic fields 13 , an increment of the importance of the RF-induced artefacts has been registered with a B 0 raise from 1.5 T to 3 T 9, 11, 14 in clinical platforms, because of the corresponding increment in the RF field frequency.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%