Body MR imaging at 3T: basic considerations about artifacts and safety

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511978968.003

Chapter 1 - Body MR imaging at 3T: basic considerations about artifacts and safety

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2011

Kevin J. Chang and

Ihab R. Kamel

Edited by

Ihab R. Kamel and

Elmar M. Merkle

Show author details

Ihab R. Kamel: Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Elmar M. Merkle: Affiliation:
Duke University School of Medicine, North Carolina

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Three Tesla magnetic resonance (MR) imaging scanners have been seeing steadily increasing use recently as hardware has matured and pulse sequences have become more optimized for a higher field strength. This increase in popularity has been more pronounced for neurologic and musculoskeletal imaging than for body imaging, however, due to the fact that 3T imaging with the larger field of view required for the torso tends to be more susceptible to artifacts and energy absorption limits than the imaging of smaller body parts.

Imaging artifacts at 3T tend to be more numerous and/or more pronounced than at lower field strengths. While most of these artifacts are the same ones encountered at lower field strengths (e.g., flow artifacts, motion artifacts, Gibbs ringing), many are more peculiar to high-field imaging. This chapter will discuss these field strength-related artifacts at 3T as they apply to body imaging with specific comparisons made to 1.5T. The differences in relaxation times, chemical shift effects, and issues related to field inhomogeneity will also be discussed. Various approaches to mitigating artifacts peculiar to an increase in field strength at 3T will also be addressed.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Body MR Imaging at 3 Tesla , pp. 1 - 11

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978968.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Vargas, MIDelavelle, JKohler, RBecker, CDLovblad, KBrain and spine MRI artifacts at 3 TeslaJ Neuroradiol 2009 36 74CrossRef Google Scholar

de Bazelaire, CMDuhamel, GDRofsky, NMAlsop, DCMR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3T: preliminary resultsRadiology 2004 230 652CrossRef Google Scholar

Bushberg, JThe Essential Physics of Medical ImagingPhiladelphia, PALippincott Williams & Wilkins 2002 933Google Scholar

Lee, JHGarwood, MMenon, RHigh contrast and fast three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging at high fieldsMagn Reson Med 1995 34 308CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wolff, SDEng, JBalaban, RSMagnetization transfer contrast: method for improving contrast in gradient-recalled-echo imagesRadiology 1991 179 133CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Elster, ADHow much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequenceEur Radiol 1997 7 276CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fukatsu, H3T MR for clinical use: updateMagn Reson Med Sci 2003 2 37CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Krautmacher, CWillinek, WATschampa, HJBrain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3T compared with 1.5T – initial experienceRadiology 2005 237 1014CrossRef Google Scholar

Lewin, JSDuerk, JLJain, VRNeedle localization in MR-guided biopsy and aspiration: effects of field strength, sequence design, and magnetic field orientationAJR Am J Roentgenol 1996 166 1337CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Olsrud, JLatt, JBrockstedt, SRomner, BBjorkman-Burtscher, IMMagnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3T) and imaging parametersJ Magn Reson Imaging 2005 22 433CrossRef Google Scholar

Chang, JMLee, JMLee, MWSuperparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5T and 3T imaging for detection of focal malignant liver lesionsInvest Radiol 2006 41 168CrossRef Google Scholar

Simon, GHBauer, JSaborovski, OT1 and T2 relaxivity of intracellular and extracellular USPIO at 1.5T and 3T clinical MR scanningEur Radiol 2006 16 738CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Li, LPVu, ATLi, BSDunkle, EPrasad, PVEvaluation of intrarenal oxygenation by BOLD MRI at 3TJ Magn Reson Imaging 2004 20 901CrossRef Google Scholar

Kuhl, CKTextor, JGieseke, JAcute and subacute ischemic stroke at high-field-strength (3.0-T) diffusion-weighted MR imaging: intraindividual comparative studyRadiology 2005 234 509CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kuhl, CKGieseke, Jvon Falkenhausen, MSensitivity encoding for diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3T: intraindividual comparative studyRadiology 2005 234 517CrossRef Google Scholar

Gruetter, RWeisdorf, SARajanayagan, VResolution improvements in in vivo 1H NMR spectra with increased magnetic field strengthJ Magn Reson 1998 135 260CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Katz-Brull, RRofsky, NMLenkinski, REBreathhold abdominal and thoracic proton MR spectroscopy at 3TMagn Reson Med 2003 50 461CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wehrli, FWPerkins, TGShimakawa, ARoberts, FChemical shift-induced amplitude modulations in images obtained with gradient refocusingMagn Reson Imaging 1987 5 157CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cornfeld, DMIsrael, GMcCarthy, SMWeinreb, JCPelvic imaging using a T1W fat-suppressed three-dimensional dual echo Dixon technique at 3TJ Magn Reson Imaging 2008 28 121CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Collins, CMLiu, WSchreiber, WYang, QXSmith, MBCentral brightening due to constructive interference with, without, and despite dielectric resonanceJ Magn Reson Imaging 2005 21 192CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hussain, SBody MR Imaging: Current Practice and Future HorizonsScientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of Radiological Society of North AmericaChicago, IL 2006

Merkle, EMDale, BMPaulson, EKAbdominal MR imaging at 3TMagn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006 14 17CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Franklin, KMDale, BMMerkle, EMImprovement in B1-inhomogeneity artifacts in the abdomen at 3T MR imaging using a radiofrequency cushionJ Magn Reson Imaging 2008 27 1443CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Tomanek, BRyner, LHoult, DIKozlowski, PSaunders, JKDual surface coil with high-B1 homogeneity for deep organ MR imagingMagn Reson Imaging 1997 15 1199CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hennig, JScheffler, KHyperechoesMagn Reson Med 2001 46 6CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hennig, JWeigel, MScheffler, KMultiecho sequences with variable refocusing flip angles: optimization of signal behavior using smooth transitions between pseudo steady states (TRAPS)Magn Reson Med 2003 49 527CrossRef Google Scholar

Shellock, FGBiomedical implants and devices: assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR systemJ Magn Reson Imaging 2002 16 721CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Shellock, FGTkach, JARuggieri, PMMasaryk, TJCardiac pacemakers, ICDs, and loop recorder: evaluation of translational attraction using conventional (“long-bore”) and “short-bore” 1.5- and 3.0-Tesla MR systemsJ Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2003 5 387CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.