Imaging near metal with a MAVRIC‐SEMAC hybrid

Koch, Kevin M.; Brau, Anja C. S.; Chen, Weitian; Gold, Garry E.; Hargreaves, Brian A.; Koff, Matthew F.; McKinnon, Graeme C.; Potter, Hollis G.; King, Kevin F.

doi:10.1002/mrm.22523

Cited by 200 publications

(259 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

250

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently developed metal artifact suppression MRI sequences have enabled MRI to become a crucial tool in the follow-up of patients with hip prosthesis [9]. Different metal suppression sequences have been developed including slice-encoding metal artifact correction (SEMAC) [10], multi-acquisition with variable resonance imaging combination (MAVRIC) [11], and a hybrid technique of those approaches termed MAVRIC-SL [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This work aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of a metal artifact suppression sequence (MAVRIC-SL) for imaging of hip arthroplasties (HA) at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T) field strength. Methods Eighteen patients (10 females; aged 27-74) with HA were examined at 3.0 and 1.5 T within 3 weeks. The sequence protocol included 3D-MAVRIC-SL PD (coronal), 3D-MAVRIC-SL STIR (axial), FSE T1, FSE PD and STIR sequences. Anatomical structures and pathological findings were assessed independently by two radiologists. Artifact extent and technical quality (image quality, fat saturation and geometric distortion) were also evaluated. Findings at 1.5 and 3.0 T were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results While image quality was better at 1.5 T, visualization of anatomic structures and clinical abnormalities was not significantly different using the two field strengths (p>0.05). Fat suppression and amount of artifacts were significantly better at 1.5 T (p <0.01). Inter-and intra-reader agreement for different anatomic details, image quality and visualization of abnormalities ranged from k=0.62 to k=1.00. Conclusion MAVRIC-SL at 1.5 T had a comparable diagnostic performance when compared MAVRIC-SL at 3.0 T; however, the higher field strength was associated with larger artifacts, limited image quality and worse fat saturation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MRI with or without MARS has been the most commonly reported surveillance mechanism for the presence of wear-related corrosion problems in hip arthroplasty [8,11,12,16,17,[28][29][30]. The use of specific, metal artifact reduction sequences such as MAVRIC (multiple acquisition variable-resonance image combination) and SEMAC (slice encoding for metal artifact correction) has increased the ability to both identify and characterize these soft tissue lesions [18,20,25].…”

Section: Magnetic Resonance Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Imaging Modalities to Diagnose Wear-related Corrosion Problems?

Nam

Barrack

Potter

2014

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Adverse tissue reactions are known to occur after total hip arthroplasty using both conventional and metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings and after MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty (SRA). A variety of imaging tools, including ultrasound (US), CT, and MRI, have been used to diagnose problems associated with wear after MoM hip arthroplasty and corrosion at the head-trunnion junction; however, the relative advantages and disadvantages of each remain a source of controversy. Questions/purposes The purposes of this review were to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of (1) US; (2) CT; and (3) MRI as diagnostic tools in the assessment of wear-related corrosion problems after hip arthroplasty. Methods A systematic literature review was performed through Medline, EMBASE, Scopus CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library without time restriction using search terms related to THA, SRA, US, CT, MRI, adverse tissue reactions, and corrosion. Inclusion criteria were Level I through IV studies in the English language, whereas expert opinions and case reports were excluded. The quality of included studies was judged by their level of evidence, method of intervention allocation, outcome assessments, and followup of patients. Four hundred ninety unique results were returned and 40 articles were reviewed.

show abstract

“…1) (25) and improved detection of periprosthetic osteolysis and synovitis when compared to conventional FSE techniques (26,27). A hybrid MAVRIC-SEMAC technique is currently being developed and also appears to be a promising method for further reducing susceptibility artifact around metallic implants (28). This method combines combining the phase-encoding in the slice direction from SEMAC and the increased spectral coverage from multiple frequency bins from the MAVRIC technique.…”

Section: Mri Around Metallic Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip

Hayter

Koff

Potter

2012

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is ideally suited to imaging the patient with painful hip arthroplasty due to its superior soft tissue contrast, multiplanar capabilities, and lack of ionizing radiation. MRI is the most accurate imaging modality in the assessment of periprosthetic osteolysis and wear‐induced synovitis, and can also assess regional tendons and neurovascular structures. This article discusses the technical aspects of MRI around metallic implants as well as the appearance of potential complications following hip arthroplasty, including osteolysis, wear‐induced synovitis, infection, hemarthrosis, fracture, loosening, component displacement, heterotopic ossification, tendinopathy, and neurovascular impingement. The specific complication of metal hypersensitivity following metal‐on‐metal prostheses is reviewed. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2012;35:1013‐1025. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Imaging near metal with a MAVRIC‐SEMAC hybrid

Cited by 200 publications

References 15 publications

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

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

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Imaging Modalities to Diagnose Wear-related Corrosion Problems?

Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About