Clinical Radiology
Volume 65, Issue 5 , Pages 387-390 , May 2010

Experimental MR imaging of zirconia ceramic joint implants at 1.5 and 3 T

Received 1 November 2009 ,Revised 4 December 2009 ,Accepted 7 December 2009.

References 

  1. Weiland DE, Walde TA, Leung SB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of periprosthetic acetabular osteolysis: a cadaveric study. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:713–719
  2. Wang Y, Truong TN, Yen C, et al. Quantitative evaluation of susceptibility and shielding effects of nitinol, platinum, cobalt-alloy, and stainless steel stents. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49:972–976
  3. Nitatori T, Hanaoka H, Hachiya J, et al. MRI artifacts of metallic stents derived from imaging sequencing and the ferromagnetic nature of materials. Radiat Med. 1999;17:329–334
  4. Viano AM, Gronemeyer SA, Haliloglu M, et al. Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;18:287–295
  5. Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ, et al. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. RadioGraphics. 2000;20:699–712
  6. Lee KY, Slavinsky JP, Ries MD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;21:172–178
  7. Matsuura H, Inoue T, Ogasawara K, et al. Quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifacts caused by neurosurgical biomaterials: comparison of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 tesla magnetic fields. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2005;45:395–398discussion 398–399
  8. Malchau H, Potter HG. How are wear-related problems diagnosed and what forms of surveillance are necessary?. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(Suppl. 1):S14–S19
  9. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174
  10. Dietrich O, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. Artifacts in 3-T MRI: physical background and reduction strategies. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65:29–35

PII: S0009-9260(10)00028-0

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2009.12.007

Clinical Radiology
Volume 65, Issue 5 , Pages 387-390 , May 2010