A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Metallic spinal artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. | LitMetric

Metallic spinal artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, University of California, San Diego.

Published: June 1994

Study Design: The magnetic resonance artifact susceptibility of traces of surgical aluminum, titanium, and stainless steel in a human spine model was investigated. Metallic filings were deposited in noncontiguous disc spaces in five human thoracic spines before magnetic resonance imaging with spin echo and gradient echo sequences.

Objectives: Spin echo and gradient echo sequences were used for quantitate and compare void artifact produced by commonly used surgical metals. This was compared to a liquid paraffin control.

Summary Of Background Data: No significant susceptibility artifact was seen with any metal in all spin echo sequences, including T1 (TR 600, TE 12), T2 (TR 2000, TE 30), proton density (TR 2000, TE 80), and fast T2 scanning (TR 3800, TE 96, Ef).

Methods: Sagittal magnetic resonance imaging permitted void artifact quantification and comparison between different metallic alloys. Two neuroradiologists, working on a blinded basis, evaluated all data and rated the void susceptibility artifact on a scale of 1 (least) to 4 (greatest).

Results: In general, the magnitude of an imaging artifact during magnetic resonance imaging correlated with the magnetism of the metal. Nickel, found in a larger concentration in 316L than in 304 stainless steel, decreases the magnetic resonance artifact of specific metals because of its ability to stabilize iron in a non-magnetic state. Therefore, the 316L stainless steel yielded less artifact production than 304 stainless steel on gradient echo imaging.

Conclusion: If upon gradient echo imaging in the postoperative period significant artifact production is noted, stainless steel deposition should be suspected as the causative agent. In this situation, spin echo techniques should be the first approach for attempting optimal visualization of the spinal cord and soft tissue structures.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199405310-00008DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

magnetic resonance
24
stainless steel
20
resonance imaging
16
spin echo
16
gradient echo
16
artifact
9
resonance artifact
8
echo
8
echo gradient
8
echo sequences
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!