Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Body MR imaging at 3T: basic considerations about artifacts and safety
- Chapter 2 Novel acquisition techniques that are facilitated by 3T
- Chapter 3 Breast MR imaging
- Chapter 4 Cardiac MR imaging
- Chapter 5 Abdominal and pelvic MR angiography
- Chapter 6 Liver MR imaging at 3T: challenges and opportunities
- Chapter 7 MR imaging of the pancreas
- Chapter 8 MR imaging of the adrenal glands
- Chapter 9 Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography
- Chapter 10 MR imaging of small and large bowel
- Chapter 11 MR imaging of the rectum, 3T vs. 1.5T
- Chapter 12 Imaging of the kidneys and MR urography at 3T
- Chapter 13 MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy of the prostate at 3T
- Chapter 14 Female pelvic imaging at 3T
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Chapter 1 - Body MR imaging at 3T: basic considerations about artifacts and safety
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Body MR imaging at 3T: basic considerations about artifacts and safety
- Chapter 2 Novel acquisition techniques that are facilitated by 3T
- Chapter 3 Breast MR imaging
- Chapter 4 Cardiac MR imaging
- Chapter 5 Abdominal and pelvic MR angiography
- Chapter 6 Liver MR imaging at 3T: challenges and opportunities
- Chapter 7 MR imaging of the pancreas
- Chapter 8 MR imaging of the adrenal glands
- Chapter 9 Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography
- Chapter 10 MR imaging of small and large bowel
- Chapter 11 MR imaging of the rectum, 3T vs. 1.5T
- Chapter 12 Imaging of the kidneys and MR urography at 3T
- Chapter 13 MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy of the prostate at 3T
- Chapter 14 Female pelvic imaging at 3T
- Index
- Plate section
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Body MR Imaging at 3 Tesla , pp. 1 - 11Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3T: preliminary resultsRadiology 2004 230 652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Essential Physics of Medical ImagingPhiladelphia, PALippincott Williams & Wilkins 2002 933Google Scholar
High contrast and fast three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging at high fieldsMagn Reson Med 1995 34 308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnetization transfer contrast: method for improving contrast in gradient-recalled-echo imagesRadiology 1991 179 133CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
How much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequenceEur Radiol 1997 7 276CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3T compared with 1.5T – initial experienceRadiology 2005 237 1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needle localization in MR-guided biopsy and aspiration: effects of field strength, sequence design, and magnetic field orientationAJR Am J Roentgenol 1996 166 1337CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnetic 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 433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5T and 3T imaging for detection of focal malignant liver lesionsInvest Radiol 2006 41 168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
T1 and T2 relaxivity of intracellular and extracellular USPIO at 1.5T and 3T clinical MR scanningEur Radiol 2006 16 738CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evaluation of intrarenal oxygenation by BOLD MRI at 3TJ Magn Reson Imaging 2004 20 901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acute and subacute ischemic stroke at high-field-strength (3.0-T) diffusion-weighted MR imaging: intraindividual comparative studyRadiology 2005 234 509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sensitivity encoding for diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3T: intraindividual comparative studyRadiology 2005 234 517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resolution improvements in in vivo 1H NMR spectra with increased magnetic field strengthJ Magn Reson 1998 135 260CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breathhold abdominal and thoracic proton MR spectroscopy at 3TMagn Reson Med 2003 50 461CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chemical shift-induced amplitude modulations in images obtained with gradient refocusingMagn Reson Imaging 1987 5 157CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelvic imaging using a T1W fat-suppressed three-dimensional dual echo Dixon technique at 3TJ Magn Reson Imaging 2008 28 121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Central brightening due to constructive interference with, without, and despite dielectric resonanceJ Magn Reson Imaging 2005 21 192CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Body MR Imaging: Current Practice and Future HorizonsScientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of Radiological Society of North AmericaChicago, IL 2006
Improvement in B1-inhomogeneity artifacts in the abdomen at 3T MR imaging using a radiofrequency cushionJ Magn Reson Imaging 2008 27 1443CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dual surface coil with high-B1 homogeneity for deep organ MR imagingMagn Reson Imaging 1997 15 1199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Multiecho sequences with variable refocusing flip angles: optimization of signal behavior using smooth transitions between pseudo steady states (TRAPS)Magn Reson Med 2003 49 527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biomedical implants and devices: assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR systemJ Magn Reson Imaging 2002 16 721CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardiac 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 387CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 1
- Cited by