Metallic neurosurgical implants for cranial reconstruction and fixation: assessment of magnetic field interactions, heating and artefacts at 3.0 Tesla

References

• Dujovny M, Aviles A, Agner C, Fernandez P, Charbel FT. Cranioplasty: cosmetic or therapeutic? Surg Neurol 1997;47:238–41.
   Google Scholar
• Dujovny M, Fernandez P, Alperin N, Betz W, Misra M, Mafee M. Post-cranioplasty cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamic changes: magnetic resonance imaging quantitative analysis. Neurol Res 1997;19:311 —16.
   Google Scholar
• Shellock FG. Metallic neurosurgical implants: evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5-Tesla. Magn Reson Imag 2001;14:295–9.
   Google Scholar
• Shellock FG. Biomedical implants and devices: assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system. Magn Reson Imag 2002;16:721 —32.
   Google Scholar
• Shellock FG, Tkach JA, Ruggieri PM, Masaryk TJ, Rasmussen PA. Aneurysm clips: evaluation of magnetic field interactions and translational attraction by use of `long-bore' and 'short-bore' 3.0-T MR imaging systems. Am 3 Neurol Res Am Neuroradiol 2003;24: 463 —71.
   Google Scholar
• Shellock FG. Radiofrequency energy-induced heating during MR procedures: a review. 3 Magn Reson Imag 2000;12: 30 — 6.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuura H, Inoue T, Konno H, Sasaki M, Ogasawara K, Ogawa A. Quantification of susceptibility artifacts produced on high-field magnetic resonance images by various biomaterials used for neurosurgical implants. Technical note. I Neurosurg 2002;97:1472 — 5.
   Google Scholar
• Shellock FG. Magnetic resonance safety update 2002: implants and devices. I Magn Reson Imag 2002;16:485 — 96.
   Google Scholar
• New PF, Rosen BR, Brady TJ, et al. Potential hazards and artifacts of ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic surgical and dental materials and devices in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 1983;147:139–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coles JP, Steiner LA, Martin J, et al. Assessment of the Ventrix parenchymal intracranial pressure monitoring probe (NL950-P) and Monitor (NL950-100) in a 3 Tesla magnetic resonance scanner. Anaesthesia 2003;58:143— 8.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner LA, Chatfield DA, Donovan T, Coles JP, Menon DK. Assessment of the Caradyne WhisperFlow for administration of continuous positive airway pressure in a 3 Tesla magnetic resonance scanner. Anaesthesia 2002;57: 470 — 4.
   Google Scholar
• Engellau L, Olsrud J, Brockstedt S, et al. MR evaluation ex vivo and in vivo of a covered stent-graft for abdominal aortic aneurysms: ferromagnetism, heating, artifacts, and velocity mapping. 3 Magn Reson Imag 2000;12:112 — 21.
   Google Scholar
• Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 1996;23:815 — 50.
   Google Scholar
• Kangarlu A, Shellock FG. Aneurysm clips: evaluation of magnetic field interactions with an 8.0 T MR system. 3 Magn Reson Imag 2000;12: 107 — 11.
   Google Scholar
• Wichmann W, Von Ammon K, Fink U, Weik T, Yasargil GM. Aneurysm clips made of titanium: magnetic characteristics and artifacts in MR. Am 3 Neurol Res Am 3 Neuroradiol 1997;18:939–44.
   Google Scholar
• Shellock F, Shellock V. Cranial bone flap fixation clamps: compatibility at MR imaging. Radiology 1998;207:822— 5.
   Google Scholar
• Dempsey MF, Condon B. Thermal injuries associated with MRI. Clin Radiol 2001;56:457–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Formica D, Silvestri S. Biological effects of exposure to magnetic resonance imaging: an overview. Biomed Eng Online 2004;3:11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sullivan PK, Smith JF, Rozzelle AA. Cranio-orbital reconstruction: safety and image quality of metallic implants on CT and MRI scanning. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;94:589 — 96.
   Google Scholar
• Port JD, Pomper MG. Quantification and minimization of magnetic susceptibility artifacts on GRE images. 3 Comput Assist Tomogr 2000;24:958— 64.
   Google Scholar