AJR Get Involved! Join ARRS Today
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Petersilge, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Ghaneyem, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Petersilge, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Ghaneyem, A. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 166, 1213-1218, Copyright © 1996 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws

CA Petersilge, JS Lewin, JL Duerk, JU Yoo and AJ Ghaneyem
Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Case Western Reserve University, OH 44106, USA.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the contribution and interdependence of multiple imaging parameters in clinical imaging sequences to aid practicing radiologists in minimizing artifacts during MR imaging of the spine after implantation of titanium pedicle screws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lumbar spine specimen with titanium pedicle screws implanted in the pedicle was imaged with a 1.5-T scanner. Sequence type, voxel volume, TE, and bandwidth varied. Different voxel volumes were achieved by altering section thickness, field of view (FOV), and matrix size. Artifact size was measured on sagittal and axial images at the midpedicle level. Artifact size was expressed as a percentage of actual screw size, and mean artifact size was calculated for each sequence. Analysis of variance without replication was done. RESULTS: Mean artifact size ranged from 231% to 364% of actual screw size. Artifact size was independent of voxel volume for voxels greater than 3 MM3 (p<.001). Artifact size decreased significantly (p<.001) when voxel volume was less than 1 mm3. When we increased slice thickness and maintained a constant voxel volume, artifact size decreased. Decreases in artifact size correlated with a reduction in the ratio of the FOV to the number of pixels in the frequency-encoding direction (Nx). Artifact sizes were smallest when fast spin-echo sequences were used. Conventional spin-echo sequences produced artifacts that were smaller than the artifacts produced by the gradient-echo sequences. Decreasing the TE did not diminish artifact size for conventional spin-echo images in larger voxel volume. CONCLUSION: Although voxel volume has been recognized as a factor that affects artifact size, the role of other contributing factors--slice thickness, number of phase-encoding steps, and FOV/Nx--has not been evaluated before. Artifact reduction proved to be dependent only on FOV/Nx. Artifact size was reduced by the use of fast spin-echo sequences. With conventional spin-echo sequences, TE should be minimized, although other technical factors may outweigh the gain in artifact reduction.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
M.-J. Lee, S. Kim, S.-A. Lee, H.-T. Song, Y.-M. Huh, D.-H. Kim, S. H. Han, and J.-S. Suh
Overcoming Artifacts from Metallic Orthopedic Implants at High-Field-Strength MR Imaging and Multi-detector CT
RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 791 - 803.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
E. M. Merkle and R. C. Nelson
Dual Gradient-Echo In-Phase and Opposed-Phase Hepatic MR Imaging: A Useful Tool for Evaluating More Than Fatty Infiltration or Fatty Sparing
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2006; 26(5): 1409 - 1418.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
T. R. McCauley
MR Imaging Evaluation of the Postoperative Knee
Radiology, January 1, 2005; 234(1): 53 - 61.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
R. V. Olsen, P. L. Munk, M. J. Lee, D. L. Janzen, A. L. MacKay, Q.-S. Xiang, and B. Masri
Metal Artifact Reduction Sequence: Early Clinical Applications
RadioGraphics, May 1, 2000; 20(3): 699 - 712.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
L. M. White, J. K. Kim, M. Mehta, N. Merchant, M. E. Schweitzer, W. B. Morrison, C. R. Hutchison, and A. E. Gross
Complications of Total Hip Arthroplasty: MR Imaging-Initial Experience
Radiology, April 1, 2000; 215(1): 254 - 262.
[Abstract] [Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.