Synopsis
This work investigates the impact of patient orientation on
SAR for 3 Tesla two-channel parallel transmit (pTx) pelvis imaging. SAR simulations
were performed on two human body models in a supine position in a 70
cm-diameter 3 T body coil in a pelvis landmark, in both “head first” and “feet
first” patient entry orientations. Whole body SAR, peak spatial SAR, and SAR
ratio (= peak SAR / whole body SAR) were computed for quadrature and pTx
excitations. Patient position and orientation can cause peak SAR and SAR ratio
to vary significantly and must be considered when evaluating pTx excitation.Purpose
One significant safety concern of MR imaging is
radio-frequency (RF) induced tissue heating. This effect has been widely
investigated for various body models, positions in the coils, and anatomies [1-3].
This work investigates the impact of patient orientation on specific absorption rate (SAR) for 3 Tesla (T) two-channel
parallel transmit (pTx) pelvis imaging.
Methods
Simulations were performed using SEMCAD X v14.8.6 (SPEAG). Two
human body models from the Virtual Family [4] (Duke, 72.4 kg male, and Ella,
59.6 kg female) were positioned in a supine position in a representative 70 cm-diameter,
16-rung, 3 T body coil in a pelvis landmark. The models were evaluated in both
“head first” and “feet first” patient entry orientations (defined arbitrarily
in the simulations), which is equivalent to a forward-ramped or a
reversed-ramped magnet configuration (see Figure 1).
The body coil was excited at 128 MHz using unit voltage
source excitations. The resultant electric and magnetic fields in the body for each
channel were exported using a uniform (2 mm)^3 grid. The data was
post-processed using MATLAB (Mathworks). Following the Q-matrix formulation [5],
whole body SAR, peak spatial SAR, and SAR ratio (= peak SAR / whole body SAR)
were computed for quadrature excitation, and 3-spokes (see Figure 2)
and 5-spokes pTx pulses. The SAR values were scaled to an average B1rms of 1 µT in the central axial (x-y) slice of the
body. Peak SAR was computed by averaging over a volume of 10x10x10 voxels.
Results
SAR
(at B1rms = 1 µT) is shown in Table 1. In all cases, the whole body SAR is approximately unchanged
for quadrature and pTx.
For Ella, the maximum peak SAR (and SAR ratio) for orientation 2 at quadrature
are substantially higher than for orientation 1. In addition, the peak SAR (and
SAR ratio) for orientation 1 are substantially increased (30-40%) for pTx as
compared to quadrature. However, for orientation 2, the peak SAR and SAR ratios
for pTx are within ~10% of quadrature. For Duke, in both orientations, all
three SAR values are within 10% of quadrature (peak SAR and SAR ratio for pTx
are slightly less than quadrature).
Coronal cross-sectional slices for the SAR distributions at
the location of the maximum peak spatial SAR for quadrature excitation (left
panel), 3-spokes pTx (middle panel) and 5-spokes pTx (right panel) are shown in
Figure
3
for Ella for both patient entry orientations. The SAR distributions in the body
are changed for pTx excitation as compared to quadrature. The intent of pTx pulses
is to improve B1 uniformity within a particular anatomy (e.g., abdomen or
pelvis) as compared to quadrature; this generally leads to a more uniform SAR
distribution.
For
Ella, the location of maximum peak SAR is in the wrist for all cases. For orientation 1, the location of the peak SAR flips from the left
wrist to the right wrist when comparing quadrature to pTx. However, for
orientation 2, the location of peak SAR does not change. Since
one of Ella's wrists is closer to the body than the other wrist, the field
rotation and distribution for different excitation schemes significantly affect local SAR. For
Duke, the location of peak SAR is either in the wrist or hip/thigh (not shown).
Discussion
When evaluating the performance of pTx excitations, pTx SAR is
generally compared to quadrature SAR. However, patient orientation is often not
considered. This work shows that patient position and orientation are
significant factors in evaluating pTx excitation, particularly when comparing
pTx to quadrature excitation, since peak SAR and SAR ratio can vary
drastically (up to 40%). This has important implications for evaluating patient safety and
system performance. Although only one body coil was evaluated, it is expected
that these results will generalize to any birdcage-type body coil, and will
extend to more than two excitation channels. Future work will consider
additional body models, pTx pulses, and patient positions.
Conclusion
Peak SAR and SAR ratio for two-channel pTx excitations are
highly dependent on patient position and orientation (head-first vs feet-first) within the body coil.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank D. Yeo (GE Global Research
Center), and M. Eash, and D. J. Schaefer (GE Healthcare) for useful
discussions.References
[1] Neufeld E, et al, PMB 56:4649-4659 (2011).
[2] Wolf S, et al, MRM 69:1157-1168 (2013).
[3] Murbach M, et al, MRM 71:839–845 (2014).
[4] Christ A., et al, PMB, 55(2):N23-N38, 2010.
[5] Graesslin I, et al, MRM 68:1664-1674 (2012).