Nitinol in Magnetic Resonance Imaging

References

• Melzer A, Sto” ckel D. Using shape-memory alloys. Med Dev Techn 1995;1:16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Shellock FG, Kanal E. Magnetic resonance bio effects, safety, and patient management. Raven Press, New York, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Ludeke KM, Roschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson !maging 1985; 3:329–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bakker CJG, Bhagwandien R, Meorland MA, Fuderer M. Susceptibility artifacts in 2DFT spin-echo and gradient-echo imaging: The cylinder model revisited. Magn Res !mag 1993;11:539–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melzer A. Seibel R. MR Guided Therapy of Spinal Diseases. Min !nv Ther All Techn 1999;3:92–7.
   Google Scholar
• Concise science dictionary, Oxford University Press, NewYork, 1996;p. 708.
   Google Scholar
• Klemm T, Duda S, Machann J, Seekamp-Rahn K et al. MR imaging in the presence of vascular stents: a systematic assessment of artifacts for various stent orientations, sequence types, and feld strengths. J Magn Reson !mag 2000;12:606–15.
   Google Scholar
• Ludeke KM, Roschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson !mag 1985;3:329–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bakker CJ, Bhagwandien R, Moerland MA, Fuderer M. Susceptibility artifacts in 2DFT spin-echo and gradient- echo imaging: the cylinder model revisited. Magn Reson !mag 1993;11:539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compat- ibility of the frst and second kinds. Med Phys 1996;23:815–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melzer A, Sto” ckel D, Busch M et al. MR-Compatible instruments for interventional MRI. In: Lufkin RB (ed.). !nterventional MR!, Mosby, NewYork, 1999:55–69.
   Google Scholar
• Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R. Magnetic resonance imaging, physical principles and sequence design. Wiley-Liss, NewYork; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Evans AJ, Blinder RA, Herfkens RJ, Spritzer et al. Effects of turbulence on signal intensity in gradient echo images. !nvest Radiol 1988;23:512–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabregues S, Baijens K, Rieu R, Bergeron P. Hemodynamics of endovascular prostheses. J Biomech 1998;31:45–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller HS, Schwarzenberg H, Wesner F, Drost R et al. Visualization of fowpatterns from stents and stent- grafts in an in vitro fow-model. !nvest Radiol 1998;33:762–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels LW, Smits HF, Bakker CJ, Viergever MA. MR imaging of vascular stents: effects of susceptibility, fow, and radiofrequency eddy currents. J Vasc !nterv Radiol 2001;12:365–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camacho CR, Plewes DB, Henkelman RM. Non- susceptibility artifacts due to metallic objects in MR imaging. J Magn Reson !mag 1995;5:75–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels LW, Bakker CJ, Viergever MA. Improved lumen visualization in metallic vascular implants by reducing RF artifacts. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:171–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teitelbaum GP, Ortega HV, Vinitsky S et al. Low-artifact intravascular devices: MR imaging evaluation. Radi- ology 1988;168:713–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teitelbaum GP, Bradley WG Jr, Klein BD. MR imaging artifacts, ferromagnetism, and magnetic torque of intravascular flters, stems and coils. Radiology 1988; 166:657–664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cragg AH, De Jong SC, Barnhart WH, Landas SK et al. Nitinol intravascular stents: results of preclinical evalu- ation. Radiology 1993;189:775–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsumoto AH, Teitelbaum GP, Carvlin MJ, Barth KH et al. Gadolinium enhanced MR imaging of vascular stents. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:357–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Link J, Steffens JC, Brossmann J, Graessner J et al. Iliofemoral arterial occlusive disease: contrast- enhanced MR angiography for preinterventional evalu- ation and follow-up after stent placement. Radiology 1999;212:371–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor DJ, Brown G. Magnetic resonance imaging of vascular stents. Proc. !ntl Soc Magn Reson Med 1999; 7:1892.
   Google Scholar
• Hilfker PR, Quick HH, Debatin JF. Plain and covered stent-grafts: in vitro evaluation of characteristics at three dimensional MR angiography. Radiology 1999; 211:693–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilfker PR, Quick HH, Schmidt M, Debatin JF. In vitro image characteristics of an abdominal aortic stent graft: CTA versus 3D MRA. MAGMA 1999;8:27–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klemm Th, Duda St., Machman J. MR Imaging in the Presence of Vascular Stents: A Systematic Assess- ment of Artifacts for Various Stent Orientations, Sequence Types and Field Strengths. JMR! 2000;12:606–15.
   Google Scholar
• Bertsch Th, Schaefers G, Busch MM, Melzer A. Inductively coupled active MRI stents CARS 2001 Proceedings, International Congresse Series 1230. 2001:1057–61.
   Google Scholar
• Kivelitz D, Wagner S, Schnorr J, Busch M et al. A vascular stent as an active component for locally enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: Initial in vivo imaging results after catheter-guided placement in rabbits. !nvest Radiol 2003;38:147–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseau H, Perreault P, Otal P, Stockx L et al. The 6-F nitinol TrapEase inferior vena cava flter: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Vasc !nterv Radiol 2001; 12:299–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reekers JA, Hoogeveen YL, Wijnands M, Bosma G et al. Evaluation of the retrievability of the OptEase IVC flter in an animal model. J Vasc !nterv Radiol 2004;15:261–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watanabe AT, Teitelbaum GP, Gomes AS, Roehm JO Jr. MR imaging of the bird’s nest flter. Radiology 1990; 177:578–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim D, Edelman RR, Margolin CJ, Porter DH et al. The Simon nitinol flter: evaluation by MR and ultrasound. Angiology 1992;43:541–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels LW, Bos C, van Der Weide R, Smits HF et al. Placement of an inferior vena cava flter in a pig guided by high-resolution MR fuoroscopy at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson !maging 2000;12:599–605.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schaefers G, Zylka W, Busch M, Melzer A. Wireless application of an intravascular resonator within the Vena Cava for MRI CARS 2001 Proceedings, !nter- national Congress Series, 2001;1230:1062–7.
   Google Scholar
• Krumsdorf U, Ostermayer S, Billinger K, Trepels T et al. Incidence and clinical course of thrombus formation on atrial septal defect and patient foramen ovale closure devices in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:302–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen SE, Voigtlander T, Kreitner KF, Kalden P et al. Quantifcation of shunt volumes in congenital heart diseases using a breath-hold MR phase contrast technique – comparison with oximetry. !nt J Cardio- vasc !maging 2002;18:53–60.
   Google Scholar
• Bonilla LF, Sullivan DJ. NewApproaches for Vascular Anastomoses. Curr !nterv Cardiol Rep 2001;3:44–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Traverse JH, Mooney MR, Pedersen WR, Madison JD. et al. Clinical, angiographic, and interventional follow-up of patients with aortic-saphenous vein graft connectors. Circulation 2003;108:452–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reuthebuch O, Kadner A, Lachat M, Kunzli A et al. Early bypass occlusion after deployment of nitinol connector devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004; 127:1421–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pederson B, Tesoro D, Wertheimer SJ, Coraci M. Mitek Anchor System: a newtechnique for tenodesis and ligamentous repair of the foot and ankle. J Foot Surg 1991;30:48–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Melzer A, Schmidt A, Triebe A, Seibel R. CT and MR Imaging Guided Laser Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Disc Hernation: With a NewDefectable Cannula, Radiology Suppl Scientiic Program RSNA1997:315.
   Google Scholar
• Kee ST, Rhee JS, Butts K, Daniel B et al. MR-guided transjugular portosystemic shunt placement in a swine model. J Vasc !nterv Radiol 1999;10:529–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nolte-Ernsting CC, Bucker A, Neuerburg JM, Glowinski A et al. Imaging-guided percutaneous nephrostomy and use of MR-compatible catheters in the nondilated porcine urinary tract. J Vasc !nterv Radiol 1999; 10: 1305–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omary RA, Frayne R, Unal O, Warner T et al. MR-guided angioplasty of renal artery stenosis in a pig model: a feasibility study. J Vasc !nterv Radiol 2000;11:373–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homer MJ, Pile-Spellman ER. Needle localization of oc- cult breast lesions with a curved-end retractable wire: technique and pitfalls. Radiology 1986;161:547–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Leary JP, Nicholson J, Gattuma R. In: T. Duerig et al. (eds), Engineering Aspects of Shape Memory Alloys, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1990:477.
   Google Scholar
• Gorczyca DP, DeBruhl ND, Sullenberger PC, Farria D et al. Wire localization of breast lesions before biopsy: use of an MR-compatible device in phantoms and cadavers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:835–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampe D, Hefer L, Alberich T, Sittek H et al. The clinical value of preoperative wire localization of breast lesions by magnetic resonance imaging – a multicenter study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;75:175–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris EA, Liberman L, DershawDD, Kaplan JB et al. Preoperative MR imaging-guided needle localization of breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: 1211–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar