Measurement of susceptibility artifacts with histogram-based reference value on magnetic resonance images according to standard ASTM F2119

References

[1] ASTM International. ASTM Standard F2119-07. In: Standard test method for evaluation of MR image artifacts from passive implants. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Blankenstein F, Truong B, Thomas A, Schröder R, Naumann M. Signal loss in magnetic resonance imaging caused by intraoral anchored dental magnetic materials. RoFo 2006; 178: 787.10.1055/s-2006-926817Search in Google Scholar

[3] Brown MA, Semelka RC. MRI: basic principles and applications. New York: Wiley 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Chen C, Chen W, Goodman S, et al. SEMAC and MAVRIC for artifact-corrected MR imaging around metal in the knee. In: Proceedings of the ISMRM, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010: 130.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Edwards MB, Taylor KM, Shellock FG. Prosthetic heart valves: evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12: 363–369.10.1002/1522-2586(200008)12:2<363::AID-JMRI21>3.0.CO;2-3Search in Google Scholar

[6] Ganapathi M, Joseph G, Savage R, Jones A, Timms B, Lyons K. MRI susceptibility artefacts related to scaphoid screws: the effect of screw type, screw orientation and imaging parameters. J Hand Surg Br 2002; 27: 165–170.10.1054/JHSB.2001.0717Search in Google Scholar

[7] Güttler F, Heinrich A, Rump J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the active second stage of labour: proof of principle. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 2020–2026.10.1007/s00330-012-2455-9Search in Google Scholar

[8] Hagspiel KD, Leung D, Nandalur KR, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 1.5 T after implantation of platinum stents: in vitro and in vivo comparison with conventional stent designs. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 288–294.10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840288Search in Google Scholar

[9] Kolind SH, MacKay AL, Munk PL, Xiang Q-S. Quantitative evaluation of metal artifact reduction techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20: 487–495.10.1002/jmri.20144Search in Google Scholar

[10] Ladd ME, Erhart P, Debatin JF, Romanowski BJ, Boesiger P, McKinnon GC. Biopsy needle susceptibility artifacts. Magn Reson Med 1996; 36: 646–651.10.1002/mrm.1910360423Search in Google Scholar

[11] Lee MJ, Janzen DL, Munk PL, MacKay A, Xiang Q-S, McGowen A. Quantitative assessment of an MR technique for reducing metal artifact: application to spin-echo imaging in a phantom. Skeletal Radiol 2001; 30: 398–401.10.1007/s002560100332Search in Google Scholar

[12] Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA. SEMAC: slice encoding for metal artifact correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62: 66–76.10.1002/mrm.21967Search in Google Scholar

[13] Matsuura H, Inoue T, Konno H, Sasaki M, Ogasawara K, Ogawa A. Quantification of susceptibility artifacts produced on high-field magnetic resonance images by various biomaterials used for neurosurgical implants: technical note. J Neurosurg 2002; 97: 1472–1475.10.3171/jns.2002.97.6.1472Search in Google Scholar

[14] Matsuura H, Inoue T, Ogasawara K, et al. Quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifacts caused by neurosurgical biomaterials: comparison of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 Tesla magnetic fields. Neurol Med Chir 2005; 45: 395–399.10.2176/nmc.45.395Search in Google Scholar

[15] Muftuler LT. Quantifying morphology and physiology of the human body using MRI. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis 2013.10.1201/b14814Search in Google Scholar

[16] Nava MB, Bertoldi S, Forti M, et al. Effects of the magnetic resonance field on breast tissue expanders. Aesth Plast Surg 2012; 36: 901–907.10.1007/s00266-012-9908-zSearch in Google Scholar

[17] Nitz WR, Runge VM. Praxiskurs MRT: Anleitung zur MRT – physik über klinische bildbeispiele. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Olsrud J, Lätt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Björkman-Burtscher IM. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: 433–437.10.1002/jmri.20391Search in Google Scholar

[19] Santiesteban FMM, Swanson SD, Noll DC, Anderson DJ. Magnetic resonance compatibility of multichannel silicon microelectrode systems for neural recording and stimulation: design criteria, tests, and recommendations. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2006; 53: 547–558.10.1109/TBME.2005.864497Search in Google Scholar

[20] Schueler BA, Parrish TB, Lin J-C, et al. MRI compatibility and visibility assessment of implantable medical devices. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 9: 596–603.10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199904)9:4<596::AID-JMRI14>3.0.CO;2-TSearch in Google Scholar

[21] Shafiei F, Honda E, Takahashi H, Sasaki T. Artifacts from dental casting alloys in magnetic resonance imaging. J Dent Res 2003; 82: 602–606.10.1177/154405910308200806Search in Google Scholar

[22] Shellock F. Metallic marking clips used after stereotactic breast biopsy: ex vivo testing of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts associated with MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172: 1417–1419.10.2214/ajr.172.5.10227529Search in Google Scholar

[23] Teichgräber UK-M, Streitparth F, Güttler FV. High-field open MRI-guided interventions. In: Kahn T, Busse H, editors. Interventional magnetic resonance imaging, Medical Radiology: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2012; 145–157.10.1007/174_2012_618Search in Google Scholar