Yonghyun Ha1, Kartiga Selvaganesan2, Chenhao Sun1, Zhehong Zhang2, Anja Samardzija2, Heng Sun2, Gigi Galiana1, and Todd Constable1
1Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States, 2Biomedical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States
Synopsis
Keywords: RF Arrays & Systems, RF Arrays & Systems
We introduced a new RF coil made with Moebius cable and RF shield bowl
that can be tuned with relatively low capacitance and has good isolation
between the coils at low field. B1 amplitude, isolation between the coils, and
SNR of the NMR signal of the proposed coil were compared with reference coils
(made with copper wire and Moebius cable without an RF shield). Both bench
measurements and MR experiments have demonstrated that this coil performs well as
part of a low field coil array.
Purpose
Receive array coils are widely used in high field MRI and may also
improve SNR at low field. Furthermore, array coils may allow a reduction in
scan time by allowing undersampling of k-space. Despite these advantages, array
coils are not widely used in low-field MRI for a range of reasons. To tune the
coil at low frequency, higher capacitance is required for both tuning and matching capacitors. Thus, either
more expensive (barely available) capacitors or a large number of capacitors
connected in parallel must be used1. Many of the well-known decoupling
methods, with the exception of geometrical decoupling methods, do not work well
due to both the unusual capacitance and inductance at low field1, 2. In
this work, we introduced a new RF coil that can be tuned with relatively low
capacitance and has good isolation between the coils. Methods
Figure 1 shows the spiral loop coils3, 4 made with (a) copper
wire (4.6 mm diameter) and
(b, c) co-axial cable (RG-316). For the spiral coil with co-axial cable, the
inner conductors of each cable end are connected to the outer conductors of the
opposite cable end as shown in Fig. 1d5. Using this Moebius loop
configuration increases the inductance of the coil, which in turn allows the
coil to be tuned with a smaller capacitance. Notably, the tuning capacitance to
tune the coil at 1 MHz for the copper wire loop and Moebius loop were 7,700 pF
and 1,720 pF, respectively. Figure 1c shows the EM shielded spiral coil. The
coil is the same as the co-axial spiral coil in the Moebius loop configuration, except
that it is shielded on five faces with copper tape. Compared to the unshielded
case, higher capacitor values were required (1,900 pF and 680 pF for tuning and matching,
respectively), but this can help reduce coupling between the loops. To verify this, S21 between two elements
of each coil design was measured and compared using a vector network analyzer. Axial B1 maps of the coils
for single channels were also measured with a 3-axis probe interfaced with a
commercial 3D printer6. All the bench measurements were
performed on the table-top MRI system which includes an RF shield on the surface
of the magnet (Fig. 2a)7. Spin-echo signal was acquired with three
different spiral coils under different coil distance conditions using the
table-top MRI system (Fig. 2b). For each scan, Tx power was adjusted
to apply proper 90/180 degree pulses.Results
Figure 3 shows the measured B1 maps associated with the the three spiral
coil designs shown in Figure 1. The measured field profile was qualitatively similar
in all cases, but the B1 amplitude was highest for the copper wire (Fig 1a) and
lowest with the EM shield (Fig 1c). Figure 4 shows the measured S21 values
between the coil elements. With the EM shield, isolation between the coils is
improved by more than 20 dB in most cases (more than 11 dB improvement with 0
distance between the coils) compared to other methods.
Figure 5 shows the spin-echo signal acquired with spiral coils under
different coil distance conditions. Despite larger B1 values in the two
unshielded coils, which are typically associated with higher sensitivity as
well as better RF encoding patterns, Figure 5 shows that unshielded coils have
significantly lower SNR than the design that implements a shielded bowl. In addition, higher Tx input power was required for
the unshielded coils for low coil separations.
In contrast, the required input power for the shielded coil does not
change with coil separation.Discussion
We have introduced a spiral coil made with a Moebius cable and RF shield
at the bottom and side walls. This coil configuration helps reduce the coupling
effect between adjacent elements in an array without the need for other
decoupling methods. A further advantage is that lower capacitance was required
for coil tuning and matching. Thus, trimmer capacitors can be used for coil tuning
and matching. Both bench measurements and NMR experiments demonstrated that this
coil design coil performs better when it is used for multi-channel array coil.
As shown in Fig. 3, adding an RF shield has little effect on the shape of the
B1+ field, but requires higher input power for the same B1 amplitude. However,
as shown in Fig. 5, when used as an array coil, there is no change in
transmission efficiency because it is not affected by the surrounding
environment. This is in contrast to unshielded coils, which require higher
input power due to the coupling effect. In addition, the SNR of the signal
acquired with shielded coil was not reduced by adding an adjacent coil element,
whereas it was significantly decreased for other coil designs. Both bench
measurements and MR experiments have demonstrated that this coil performs well
when used as an array coil for low field MRI.Conclusions
It was
demonstrated using both bench measurements and NMR experiments that the bowl-shielded
spiral Moebius coil outperforms unshielded coils in terms of
decoupling the array coil elements. This method can be effectively used for
array coil development, particularly at the low-field MRI system.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1.B. de Vos, J. Parsa, Z. Abdulrazaq, W. M.
Teeusisse, C. D. E. Van speybroeck, D. H. de Gans, R. F. Remis, T. O’Reilly,
and A. G. Webb, “Design, characterisation and performance of an improved
portable and sustainable low-field MRI system,” Front. Phys., vol. 413,
2021.
2. C. J. Cooley, J. P. Stockmann, B. D.
Armstrong, M. Sarracanie, M. H. Lev, M. S. Rosen, and L. L. Wald,
“Two-dimensional imaging in a lightweight portable MRI scanner without gradient
coils,” Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 872-883, 2015.
3. K. N. Kim, Y. B. Kim, and Z. H. Cho, “Improvement
of a 4-channel spiral-loop coil RF coil array for TMJ MR imaging at 7T,” J.
Korean Soc. Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 103-114.
4. S. Shen, Z. Xu, N. Koonjoo, and M. S.
Rosen, “Optimization of a close-fitting volume RF coil for brain imaging at 6.5
mT using linear programming,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 68, no. 4, pp.
1106-1114.
5. O. Aluf, “Moebius loop antenna system
stability analysis under parameters variation,” IEEE COMCAS, pp. 1-5, 2017.
6. Y. Ha, K. Selvaganesan, S. Hosseinnezhadian,
B. Wu, K. Hancock, G. Galiana, and R. T. Constable, “Automatic 3D B1 field
mapping using 3D printer and digital oscilloscope for gradient-free MRI
system,” in Proc. 29th Annu. Meet. Int. Soc. Magn. Reson. Med., Virtual
meeting, May 15-20, 2021.
7. R. T. Constable,
C. Rogers III, B. Wu, K. Selvaganesan, and G. Galiana, “Design of a novel class
of open MRI devices with nonuniform B0, field cycling, and RF spatial
encoding,” in Proc. 27th annu. Meet. Int. Soc. Magn. Res. Med., Montreal,
Canada, May 10-13, 2019.