Nikolai Avdievich1, Georgiy Solomakha2, Loreen Ruhm1, Anke Henning1,3, and Klaus Scheffler1
1High-field Magnetic Resonance, Max Planck Institute for Bilogical Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany, 2Physics and Engineering, ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 3Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
Synopsis
Dipole
antennas have been successfully utilized at ultra-high fields (UHF, >7
T) for human body and head imaging. Combining X-nuclei surface loops and
1H dipoles can substantially simplify the design of a double-tuned
UHF human head coil. In this work, we developed and constructed a novel 13C/1H
human head 9.4 T array coil consisting of eight 13C surface loops
and eight 1H folded-end dipoles surrounding the head. We showed that
coupling between loops and dipoles can be minimized by placing four 1H
traps into each 13C loop. The new coil demonstrated an improved 1H
longitudinal coverage and reasonable Tx efficiency.
Purpose
To simplify
the design of a double-tuned (DT) human head 9.4T array coil while preserving
relatively high transmit (Tx) performance at both frequencies.Introduction
X-nuclei (13C, 31P
etc) Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS) and Imaging (MRSI) provide valuable
tools for medical diagnostics and biomedical research. However, these methods
suffer from poor SNR. Thus, increased SNR at ultra-high field (UHF, >
7T) can improve the quality of X-nuclei MRS and MRSI. In addition, these
methods require use of DT RF-coils resonating at two frequencies. Commonly, UHF
RF-coils must provide both local transmission and reception. This complicates
the DT-design, which often consists of several layers of Tx and receive (Rx)
elements. Therefore, simplification of the UHF DT-coil design without
compromising its performance is very important. Good performance of the DT-array at 1H-frequency is also important for many applications. Recently, a new type of RF coil,
i.e. a dipole antenna (1), which has a simple mechanical and electrical structure,
was developed and used for human body (1-3) and head (4-6) imaging at UHF. Thus,
combining X-nuclei surface loops and 1H-dipoles can simplify the
design of a DT UHF human head coil. In this work, we developed and constructed a
novel 13C/1H human head 9.4T array coil.Methods
Presence of 13C loops resonating at lower frequency
(100 MHz) can still strongly affect the performance of 1H dipole
array (7). The common way of minimizing this interaction, is an introduction one
or several resonant 1H-traps (400 MHz) into each X-nuclei loop (8).
Therefore, we numerically investigated how many 1H-traps need to be
introduced into each 13C-loop. The CST model of the DT
array coil (Fig.1) included all sixteen transmit/receive (TxRx) elements, i.e.
eight 13C loops and eight 1H folded-end dipoles all placed in a single-layer at the
same distance to the sample. The array measured 200 mm in width (left-right), 230 mm in height
(anterior-posterior) and 190mm in length. The length of the 13C-loops measured 175 mm. Adjacent 13C-loops were decoupled
by overlapping, and the nearest
non-adjacent loops (e.g. 1&3, 2&4 etc) using transformer decoupling. Decoupling
of adjacent dipole elements was provided by the RF shield (7). To improve the RF-field at the superior location (9), we
added a flat RF-shield (Fig.1). We also numerically compared the
performance of the DT 16-element array with that of single-tuned (ST) 8-element
arrays at both frequencies. Electromagnetic
(EM)
simulations were performed
using CST Studio Suite 2019 (CST, Darmstadt, Germany) and the time-domain
solver based on the finite-integration technique. All data were acquired on a
Siemens Magnetom 9.4T human imaging system.
We compared the new array performance at 400MHz with that of the DT 20-element 31P/1H
array (8) and ST 16-loop array (10) constructed previously.Results and Discussion:
Fig.2 shows the
numerical comparison of the 13C/1H array Tx-performance
with that of the ST 1H 8-element dipole array. The DT-array was
simulated in two versions, i.e. 13C-loops having two or four
1H-traps. Presence of 13C-loops decreases <B1+> (averaged
over 130-mm transversal slab) by ~10% (4 traps) and ~15% (2 traps). In
addition, the B1+
field map in the presence of 2-trap loops was stronger altered especially near
the nose (Fig.3C) due to a current induced in 13C-loops. This
current also increases SAR (Fig.3F) in this location. An addition of 1H-dipoles had a minimal effect on the 13C-array Tx-performance. Averaged
B1+ was reduced
by less than 1% and peak SAR changed only by 2%.
Figs.3 shows 8x8 S12 matrices obtained
for the new DT-array loaded by the head-and-shoulder (HS) phantom and a human head. 400-MHz S12 matrix (Fig.3A) shows the
strongest coupling between adjacent dipole elements with the average value of
-15.6 dB. Averaged coupling between adjacent elements at 100MHz (Fig.3B) measured
-14.5 dB. The worst coupling was measured for pairs of loops separated by two
elements (i.e. 1&4, 2&5 etc) with the average value of -13.1 dB. Fig.4
shows experimentally measured 13C B1+ map. Averaged over the 130-mm transversal
slab <B1+>
measured 32 μT/√kW (normalized to the coil input). Simulated <B1+> value was 16%
higher. Finally,
Fig.5 shows
a comparison of new DT-array with other DT- and ST-coils. The presented novel design further improves the brain
coverage at 1H-frequency without increasing the number of elements and
provides the longitudinal coverage comparable with that of the substantially
more complex 2x8 1H ST-array.Conclusion
We showed that coupling between loops and dipoles can be minimized
by placing four 1H-traps into each 13C loop. The
presented RF DT-array substantially simplifies the DT head coil design. At the
same time, the coil demonstrated the improved 1H longitudinal
coverage and reasonable Tx-efficiency.Acknowledgements
Funding by the ERC Starting grant / SYNAPLAST /
679927 and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT)
grant / RR180056 is kindly acknowledged.References
1) Raaijmakers AJE, Ipek O, Klomp DWJ et al. Magn
Reson Med 2011;66:1488-1497. 2) Oezerdem
C., Winter L., Graessl A. et al. Magn
Reson Med 2016;75:2553–2565. 3) Raaijmakers AJE, Italiaander M, Voogt IJ et al. Magn Reson Med 2016;75:1366–1374.
4) Clément
J, Gruetter R, and Ipek Ö. Magn Reson Med 2019;81:1447–1458. 5) Connell IRO, Mennon RS IEEE Trans Med Imag 2019;38: 2177-2187. 6) Avdievich NI, Solomakha G,
Ruhm L, Scheffler K, Henning A. NMR in BioMed 2020;33:1-11. 7)
Shajan, G, Mirkes C, Buckenmaier K, Hoffmann J, Pohmann R, Scheffler K. Magn Reson Med
2016;75:906-916. 8) Avdievich NI, Ruhm L,
Dorst J, Scheffler K, Korzowski A, Henning A. Magn
Reson Med 2020;84:1076-1079. 9)
Alecci M, Collins CM, James Wilson J, Liu W, Smith MB, Jezzard P. Magn Reson
Med 2003;49:363-370. 10) Avdievich NI, Giapitzakis IA, Pfrommer A, Henning A. NMR in BioMed 2018, 31(9):1-13.