Synopsis
MRI is an excellent imaging
modality for evaluation of a wide variety of pathologies, due to its
combination of spatial resolution, tissue contrast, and sensitivity for edema.
The utilization of MRI in the presence of metal, however, is complicated by a variety
of associated artifacts, largely related to metal susceptibility. Though
sometimes technically demanding, appropriate modification of pulse sequence
acquisition parameters can mitigate the effects of metal related artifacts, and
the utilization of more advanced metal reduction sequences, where necessary,
can result in further reductions in artifact, yielding high quality diagnostic
scans in patients with metallic implants.
Introduction
MRI is an excellent imaging
modality for evaluation of a wide variety of pathologies, due to its
combination of spatial resolution, tissue contrast, and sensitivity for edema.
The utilization of MRI in the presence of metal, however, is complicated by a variety
of associated artifacts, largely related to metal susceptibility. Though
sometimes technically demanding, appropriate modification of pulse sequence
acquisition parameters can mitigate the effects of metal related artifacts, and
the utilization of more advanced metal reduction sequences, where necessary,
can result in further reductions in artifact, yielding high quality diagnostic
scans in patients with metallic implants.
Conventional
Sequences in the Presence of Metal
Many
variables contribute to the degree and extent of artifact observed about a
given implant upon images generated by a particular pulse sequence. Artifacts
related to B0 field inhomogeneities tend to be proportional to the static field
strength; therefore imaging at higher field strengths (for example, 3.0T
instead of 1.5T) will result in accentuation of artifacts generated by implant [1-3]. The type of
pulse sequence also influences the degree of artifact generated by a particular
implant, with gradient echo sequences, due to their lack of a refocusing pulse,
generating significantly more artifact than fast spin echo sequences, which
employ multiple refocusing pulses. Fat suppression techniques also vary in
their utility about metallic implants, with spectrally selective techniques,
such as conventional chemical fat saturation tending to result in more
artifacts than alternate less frequency dependent techniques such as inversion
recovery [1-3]. Component
design also plays a role in the degree of artifact generated, with certain
metals and particular geometric configurations generating a greater amount of
artifact.
Parameter Modifications
When imaging
metal utilizing conventional pulse sequences, various modifications of typical
pulse acquisition parameters may be employed in order to reduce the amount of artifact
generated.
Increasing the receiver bandwidth increases the strength of the readout
gradient, which results in decreased artifact due to the fact that spatial
distortion is inversely proportional to gradient strength. Using a wider bandwidth
will also reduce interecho spacing, allowing for longer echo train lengths
resulting in reduced scan time. A wider receiver bandwidth, however, results in
decreased SNR.
Decreasing
the voxel size improves spatial resolution, but decreases SNR.
Increasing
the number of excitations increases SNR, offsetting the reduction in SNR
resulting from modifying the bandwidth and voxel size; however, this results in
increased scan time [1-3].
Advanced
Techniques for Metal Suppression
Single point MRI, which
eliminates the slice select and readout encoding processes by fully phase
encoding the images, can remove susceptibility artifact related to metal,
though acquisition times tend to be excessively long. One example of this type
of sequence is single point ramped imaging with T1 enhancement (SPRITE), in
which a single point of the FID is sampled per TR, while gradients are kept on
and progressively ramped down with each successive TR. While SPRITE has been
demonstrated to effectively reduce susceptibility artifact with experimental
phantoms, there are multiple barriers to utilizing the sequence clinically,
foremost among these being a prohibitively long image acquisition time [3].
View angle tilting (VAT)
reapplies the slice selection gradient during the readout, which shears the
image in the plane of the slice and readout directions. Because slice displacement and in plane
displacement have a constant ratio, the reapplication of the slice gradient
results in the slice displacements exactly cancelling in plane displacements [1-3].
WARP VAT (Siemens) is a metal
reduction sequence combining view angle tilting with a high bandwidth fast spin
echo acquisition in order to obtain the metal reduction benefits of both
techniques [4].
Prepolarized MRI utilizes
application of a relatively low magnetic field of minimal spatial homogeneity
to polarize spins prior to signal acquisition, which is performed utilizing an
even lower but more homogeneous field. Because the readout field is on the
order of mT, the effects of susceptibility are greatly reduced as compared to
conventional images obtained at typical clinical field strengths. These types
of scanners, however, are not in routine use clinically, and tend to have small
bores unsuitable for imaging of larger anatomic regions [3].
Slice encoding for metal
artifact correction (SEMAC) utilizes view angle tilting and additional phase
encoding steps in the slice select direction in order to reduce artifact
related to metal susceptibility.
Frequency perturbations about
metallic implants may result in excitation of protons within slices adjacent to
the intended slice of interest upon application of the slice selective RF pulse,
which results in signal arising from outside of the slice of interest
mistakenly being registered as having arisen from the intended imaging slice
position. SEMAC applies additional phase encoding in the Z axis in order to
accurately resolve the spatial origin of signal arising from the slice of
interest and immediately adjacent slices. A postprocessing algorithm is then
utilized to assign signal arising from the excited slab to the correct slice
location. Because this technique alone
only corrects misregistration in the Z axis, view angle tilting is added to
address disturbances in the frequency direction.
SEMAC typically results in a
significant decrease in the amount of susceptibility artifact associated with
metallic implants; however, the additional encoding steps result in increased
scan time. Techniques such as parallel and partial Fourier imaging may be
applied to reduce scan time, particularly given the fact that the robust
spatial encoding also results in an increase in SNR [2,
3, 5-9].
Multiacquisition
variable resonance image combination (MAVRIC) is an advanced metal artifact reduction
sequence which utilizes multiple image acquisitions over a range of frequency
bins centered about the Larmor frequency, with subsequent post processing
yielding a composite image in which the effects of susceptibility are markedly
reduced. Rather than exciting a slice or
slab, MAVRIC uses a frequency selective excitation, limiting the range of
frequency offsets imaged at one time, which results in decreased in plane
displacement. Phase encoding is performed in the slice direction to avoid
distortion in this direction. Image acquisition is performed over a range of
frequency bins and the individual images are subsequently combined utilizing a
sum of squares operation to yield a composite image [2,
3, 5, 10].
The
main difference between the MAVRIC and SEMAC techniques is that MAVRIC excites
limited frequency bands, while SEMAC excites limited spatial bands. A hybrid of
the 2 techniques also exists, combining the MAVRIC spectral bins with SEMACs
slab selectivity [11,
12].
CONCLUSIONS
Metallic
implants are commonly encountered during clinical MR imaging evaluation, but
result in a variety of artifacts, which tend to reduce diagnostic quality on
conventional clinical pulse sequences, particularly in the region immediately
adjacent to the implant. Appropriate
modification of scan acquisition parameters can result in significant reduction
of artifact on conventional imaging sequences, and the utilization of advances
sequences specifically designed for use in the setting of metal can result in
further artifact reduction.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Gupta,
A., et al., Metal artifact reduction:
standard and advanced magnetic resonance and computed tomography techniques.
Radiol Clin North Am, 2015. 53(3):
p. 531-47.
2. Hargreaves,
B.A., et al., Metal-induced artifacts in
MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2011. 197(3):
p. 547-55.
3. Koch,
K.M., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging
near metal implants. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2010. 32(4): p. 773-87.
4. Lazik,
A., et al., Usefulness of metal artifact
reduction with WARP technique at 1.5 and 3T MRI in imaging metal-on-metal hip
resurfacings. Skeletal Radiol, 2015. 44(7):
p. 941-51.
5. Chen,
C.A., et al., New MR imaging methods for
metallic implants in the knee: artifact correction and clinical impact. J
Magn Reson Imaging, 2011. 33(5): p.
1121-7.
6. Hargreaves,
B.A., et al., Accelerated slice encoding
for metal artifact correction. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2010. 31(4): p. 987-96.
7. Lee,
Y.H., et al., Usefulness of slice
encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) for reducing metallic artifacts
in 3-T MRI. Magn Reson Imaging, 2013. 31(5):
p. 703-6.
8. Lee,
Y.H., et al., Feasibility of
fat-saturated T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with slice encoding for
metal artifact correction (SEMAC) at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging, 2014. 32(8): p. 1001-5.
9. Lu, W.,
et al., SEMAC: Slice Encoding for Metal
Artifact Correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med, 2009. 62(1): p. 66-76.
10. Liebl, H.,
et al., In vitro assessment of knee MRI
in the presence of metal implants comparing MAVRIC-SL and conventional fast
spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T field strength. J Magn Reson Imaging,
2015. 41(5): p. 1291-9.
11. Choi, S.J.,
et al., Metal artifact reduction with
MAVRIC SL at 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J
Roentgenol, 2015. 204(1): p. 140-7.
12. Gutierrez,
L.B., et al., MR imaging near metallic
implants using MAVRIC SL: initial clinical experience at 3T. Acad Radiol,
2015. 22(3): p. 370-9.