1 / 29

Implant Imaging with PMRI

Implant Imaging with PMRI. Ross Venook, Meena Ramachandran, Sharon Ungersma, Nathaniel Matter, Nicholas Giori 1 , Garry Gold, Albert Macovski, Greig Scott & Steven Conolly 2. 1 Orthopedics, Palo Alto VA 2 Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley. Outline. Motivation Why should we image implants?

demont
Télécharger la présentation

Implant Imaging with PMRI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implant Imaging with PMRI Ross Venook, Meena Ramachandran, Sharon Ungersma, Nathaniel Matter, Nicholas Giori1, Garry Gold, Albert Macovski, Greig Scott & Steven Conolly2 1Orthopedics, Palo Alto VA 2Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley

  2. Outline • Motivation • Why should we image implants? • Background on Implants • Susceptibility • Imaging Experiments • Conclusion PMRIL

  3. Implants—so hot right now • 300,000 total knee replacements per year • 40-50% of orthopedic surgeries result in a patient with some metal inside • All trauma, joint replacement, or spine • Half of hand or foot PMRIL

  4. Why image implants? (short term) • Post-operative evaluation is limited to traditional radiographs • No soft-tissue imaging modality to track progress or identify complications PMRIL

  5. Why image implants? (long term) “Loosening” is a longer-term complication: • Septic loosening => Removal • Immediate surgery, serious risks • Loss of function • Aseptic loosening => “Revision” • Lower risks • Restores function • Average implant age increases as people live longer and as younger people get more implants PMRIL

  6. Outline • Motivation • Background on Implants • Show and Tell • Orthopedic methods, materials, manufacturers • Problems with imaging implants • Susceptibility • Imaging Experiments • Conclusion PMRIL

  7. Acetabular Cup Femoral Joint Tibial Joint Intermedullary Nail Screw Hips Show and Tell PMRIL

  8. Orthopedic Methods • Once involved mostly screws and plates • Still used for traumatic cases, vertebrae • Now working with bone cements, and special surface geometries • Certain surface features promote bone adhesion • Previously very few sizes/shapes of implants • Now implants are modular for optimal size and shape to match anatomy PMRIL

  9. Zimmer Alphatech Synthes Smith & Nephew DePuy (J & J) Howmedica (?) Others… Stainless Steel Cobalt-chrome Titanium Titanium alloys Tivanium™ Zirconium Zirconium alloys Oximium™ Zimalloy™ Manufacturers and Materials Optimized for safety and efficacy PMRIL

  10. Problem with Imaging Metal Implants is … they are made of metal. • Radiography works fine • Soft tissue somewhat lacking Cyteval, et al., Rad 2002 PMRIL

  11. Why not use CT? • People do… Cyteval, et al., Rad 2002 PMRIL

  12. Why not use CT? • …but there are problems • Beam hardening • ‘Streaking’ artifacts • Unable to differentiate aseptic loosening Cyteval, et al., Rad 2002 PMRIL

  13. Why not use MR? • Short answer: MR is just so darn sensitive • Jongho’s talk • Lung air susceptibility • B0 changes ~1Hz • Air has ~9 ppm shift • More than 1 radius from lungs • Titanium has ~180 ppm shift • Image right on top of it PMRIL

  14. PMRIL

  15. Outline • Motivation • Background on Implants • Susceptibility • Basics • Why PMRI • Imaging Experiments • Conclusion PMRIL

  16. http://antigravitypower.tripod.com/BioGravity/clarklev.html Susceptibility: Basics • All materials have mr • Magnetic permeability • Magnetic analog of electric polarizability • Susceptibility defined: c = mr – 1 • How ‘susceptible’ to applied magnetic field PMRIL

  17. Susceptibility: Wide Range Schenck, JF, Med Phys 1996 PMRIL

  18. Susceptibility in an MR Magnet • Off-resonance artifacts depend on: • Orientation of object with respect to B0 • Magnitude of B0 (ppm) • Susceptibility difference Dc=ci-ce Ludeke, et al., MRI 1985 Butts, et al., JMRI 1999 PMRIL

  19. Susceptibility in an MR Magnet • Creates an object-dependent, orientation-dependent, serious off-resonance artifact Dw=DcgB0/2 (for right cylinder) a Dcw0 PMRIL

  20. Susceptibility Wrap-up • As complicated as you want it to be • Trajectory • Readout Gradient Strength • Slice Selection (RF and Gradient) • Problems a DcgB0 • Material properties: Dc, g • Scanner property: B0 (if only we had a low-field…) Woohoo! PMRIL

  21. Outline • Motivation • Background on Implants • Susceptibility • Imaging Experiments • PMRI (27mT) vs. 1.5T Spin Echo • Conclusion PMRIL

  22. Goals • Compare standard spin-echo images • 1.5T Signa scanner (64MHz) TE =10ms, 31.25 kHz BW, 256x128, 24cm FOV, 3mm slice • 27mT PMRI scanner (1.1MHz) TE = 6ms, 16 kHz BW, 128x128, 12cm FOV, 1cm slice • Simple experiment with actual implant • Titanium tibial knee joint replacement PMRIL

  23. Images 1.5T, Signa 27mT, PMRI PMRIL

  24. Images 1.5T, Signa 27mT, PMRI PMRIL

  25. Images 1.5T, Signa 27mT, PMRI PMRIL

  26. Outline • Motivation • Background on Implants • Automatic Tuning • Imaging Experiments • Conclusion • Wait a minute… • Future work PMRIL

  27. Techniques for 1.5T • View Angle Tilting (VAT) • Re-registers water-fat and other inhomogeneities • Presumes good slice • Some blurring • “MARS” • VAT with bigger gradients • VAT deblurring • Kim, John, Garry • Quadratic-phase RF Standard SE with MARS Olsen, et al., Radiographics 2000 PMRIL

  28. Future Work • Image every implant in our collection • Catalog artifacts at low-field • Do susceptibility artifacts scale with field? • Compare with 0.5T, 1.5T • Compare with different PMRI fields (1MHz-2MHz) • Other artifacts • RF eddy currents • Gradient switching • Optimal field? PMRIL

  29. Acknowledgements • GE Medical Systems • NIH • Nick Giori (implants) PMRIL

More Related