MR liver imaging and cholangiography in the presence of surgical metallic clips at 1.5 and 3 Tesla

被引:11
作者
Merkle, Elmar M.
Dale, Brian M.
Thomas, John
Paulson, Erik K.
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[2] Siemens Med Solut, Cary, NC 27519 USA
关键词
magnetic resonance imaging; biliary imaging; 3; Tesla; MRC; IN-VITRO; PITFALLS; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTIFACTS; IMPLANTS; BIOPSY; FIELD;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-006-0234-1
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
To evaluate whether clips from prior cholecystectomy impair image quality during magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) at 3 Tesla (T) compared with 1.5 T, surgical clips were embedded in a gel phantom and positioned at predefined distances from a fluid-filled tube designed to simulate the bile duct. The maximum clip distance was noted where susceptibility artifacts obscured the fluid-filled tube at 1.5 T and 3 T. Susceptibility artifact size was calculated for each sequence within each magnet class. In vivo analysis included 42 patients postcholecystectomy who underwent MRC at either 1.5 T or 3 T. In vitro, mean area of susceptibility artifacts was 104 mm(2) on 3-T and 75 mm(2) on 1.5-T MR imaging (MRI). While surgical clips within a 2-mm range impaired visualization of the fluid-filled tube on 1.5-T MRI, this range increased to 4 mm on 3-T MRI. In vivo, MRC image quality was impaired by susceptibility artifacts in three of 21 cases at 3 T and in two of 21 cases at 1.5 T. Overall, biliary pseudo-obstructions due to susceptibility artifacts from cholecystectomy surgical clips were not substantially more common on 3-T MRC in clinical practice, and patients with a history of prior cholecystectomy should not be excluded from a 3-T MRC.
引用
收藏
页码:2309 / 2316
页数:8
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] Sensitivity of T2-weighted FSE sequences towards physiological iron depositions in normal brains at 1.5 and 3.0 T
    Allkemper, T
    Schwindt, W
    Maintz, D
    Heindel, W
    Tombach, B
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2004, 14 (06) : 1000 - 1004
  • [2] Current concepts - Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography
    Barish, MA
    Yucel, EK
    Ferrucci, JT
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1999, 341 (04) : 258 - 264
  • [3] BERKLE EM, 2006, AM J ROENTGENOL, V186, P516
  • [4] Butts K, 1999, JMRI-J MAGN RESON IM, V9, P586, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199904)9:4<586::AID-JMRI13>3.3.CO
  • [5] 2-O
  • [6] Frahm C, 1996, CARDIOVASC INTER RAD, V19, P335
  • [7] RF aitifacts caused by metallic implants or instruments which get more prominent at 3 T: an in vitro study
    Graf, H
    Lauer, UA
    Berger, A
    Schick, F
    [J]. MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2005, 23 (03) : 493 - 499
  • [8] Pitfalls in MR cholangiopancreatographic interpretation
    Irie, H
    Honda, H
    Kuroiwa, T
    Yoshimitsu, K
    Aibe, H
    Shinozaki, K
    Masuda, K
    [J]. RADIOGRAPHICS, 2001, 21 (01) : 23 - 37
  • [9] 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance angiography of endovascular aortic stent grafts -: Phantom measurements in comparison with 1.5 Tesla
    Krämer, SC
    Wall, A
    Maintz, D
    Bachmann, R
    Kugel, H
    Heindel, W
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2004, 39 (07) : 413 - 417
  • [10] Radio frequency versus susceptibility effects of small conductive implants - a systematic MRI study on aneurysm clips at 1.5 and 3 T
    Lauer, UA
    Graf, H
    Berger, A
    Claussen, CD
    Schick, F
    [J]. MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2005, 23 (04) : 563 - 569