link
Bookmarks
Spine
Diagnosis
Spine Postprocedural Imaging
Hardware
Metal Artifact
Metal Artifact
Jeffrey S. Ross, MD
To access 4,300 diagnoses written by the world's leading experts in radiology, please log in or subscribe.Subscribe
0
12
4
0

KEY FACTS

  • Terminology

    • Imaging

      TERMINOLOGY

      • Synonyms

        • CT: Beam-hardening artifact and blooming artifact
        • MR: Magnetic susceptibility artifact

      • Definitions

        • Image degradation related to metal prostheses/implants
        • Magnetic susceptibility
          • Partial magnetization of material in presence of applied external magnetic field
          • Nonferromagnetic metals may produce local electrical currents induced by changing scanner magnetic field
          • Tissues with greatly different magnetic susceptibilities in uniform magnetic field leads to
            • Difference of susceptibilities causes distortion in magnetic field → distortion on MR
            • Magnetic susceptibility artifact consists of 2 additive components
              • Geometric distortion + signal loss secondary to dephasing

      IMAGING

      • General Features

        • Radiographic Findings

          • CT Findings

            • MR Findings

              • Nonvascular Interventions

                • Imaging Recommendations

                  DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

                    PATHOLOGY

                    • General Features

                      CLINICAL ISSUES

                      • Presentation

                        • Demographics

                          DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST

                          • Consider

                            • Image Interpretation Pearls

                              Selected References

                              1. Chiang IC et al: Benefits and pitfalls of iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) imaging in clinical application of the cervical spine MR. Clin Radiol. 74(1):78.e13-21, 2019
                              2. Katsura M et al: Current and novel techniques for metal artifact reduction at CT: practical guide for radiologists. Radiographics. 38(2):450-61, 2018
                              3. Wellenberg RHH et al: Metal artifact reduction techniques in musculoskeletal CT-imaging. Eur J Radiol. 107:60-9, 2018
                              4. Hakky M et al: Application of basic physics principles to clinical neuroradiology: differentiating artifacts from true pathology on MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 201(2):369-77, 2013
                              5. Stradiotti P et al: Metal-related artifacts in instrumented spine. Techniques for reducing artifacts in CT and MRI: state of the art. Eur Spine J. 18 Suppl 1:102-8, 2009
                              6. Lee MJ et al: Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics. 27(3):791-803, 2007
                              7. Buckwalter KA et al: Multichannel CT imaging of orthopedic hardware and implants. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 10(1):86-97, 2006
                              8. Chang SD et al: MRI of spinal hardware: comparison of conventional T1-weighted sequence with a new metal artifact reduction sequence. Skeletal Radiol. 30(4):213-8, 2001
                              9. Viano AM et al: Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging. 18(3):287-95, 2000
                              10. Henk CB et al: The postoperative spine. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 10(4):247-64, 1999
                              11. Rudisch A et al: Metallic artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with spinal fusion. A comparison of implant materials and imaging sequences. Spine. 23(6):692-9, 1998
                              12. Suh JS et al: Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 171(5):1207-13, 1998
                              13. Taber KH et al: Pitfalls and artifacts encountered in clinical MR imaging of the spine. Radiographics. 18(6):1499-521, 1998
                              14. Wang JC et al: A comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomographic image quality after the implantation of tantalum and titanium spinal instrumentation. Spine. 23(15):1684-8, 1998
                              15. Frazzini VI et al: Internally stabilized spine: optimal choice of frequency-encoding gradient direction during MR imaging minimizes susceptibility artifact from titanium vertebral body screws. Radiology. 204(1):268-72, 1997
                              16. Doran SE et al: Internal fixation of the spine using a braided titanium cable: clinical results and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurgery. 38(3):493-6; discussion 496-7, 1996
                              17. Ortiz O et al: Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging with titanium implants of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery. 38(4):741-5, 1996
                              18. Petersilge CA et al: Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 166(5):1213-8, 1996
                              19. Shellock FG: MR imaging and cervical fixation devices: evaluation of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging. 14(9):1093-8, 1996
                              20. Tominaga T et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of titanium anterior cervical spine plating systems. Neurosurgery. 36(5):951-5, 1995
                              21. Tartaglino LM et al: Metallic artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology. 190(2):565-9, 1994
                              22. Vaccaro AR et al: Metallic spinal artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 19(11):1237-42, 1994
                              23. Toro VE et al: MR artifacts after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion: a cadaver study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 17(5):696-9, 1993
                              24. Yoshino MT et al: Metallic postoperative artifacts on cervical MR. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 14(3):747-9, 1993
                              25. Peterman SB et al: Magnetic resonance artifact in the postoperative cervical spine. A potential pitfall. Spine. 16(7):721-5, 1991
                              Related Anatomy
                              Loading...
                              Related Differential Diagnoses
                              Loading...
                              References
                              Tables

                              Tables

                              KEY FACTS

                              • Terminology

                                • Imaging

                                  TERMINOLOGY

                                  • Synonyms

                                    • CT: Beam-hardening artifact and blooming artifact
                                    • MR: Magnetic susceptibility artifact

                                  • Definitions

                                    • Image degradation related to metal prostheses/implants
                                    • Magnetic susceptibility
                                      • Partial magnetization of material in presence of applied external magnetic field
                                      • Nonferromagnetic metals may produce local electrical currents induced by changing scanner magnetic field
                                      • Tissues with greatly different magnetic susceptibilities in uniform magnetic field leads to
                                        • Difference of susceptibilities causes distortion in magnetic field → distortion on MR
                                        • Magnetic susceptibility artifact consists of 2 additive components
                                          • Geometric distortion + signal loss secondary to dephasing

                                  IMAGING

                                  • General Features

                                    • Radiographic Findings

                                      • CT Findings

                                        • MR Findings

                                          • Nonvascular Interventions

                                            • Imaging Recommendations

                                              DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

                                                PATHOLOGY

                                                • General Features

                                                  CLINICAL ISSUES

                                                  • Presentation

                                                    • Demographics

                                                      DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST

                                                      • Consider

                                                        • Image Interpretation Pearls

                                                          Selected References

                                                          1. Chiang IC et al: Benefits and pitfalls of iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) imaging in clinical application of the cervical spine MR. Clin Radiol. 74(1):78.e13-21, 2019
                                                          2. Katsura M et al: Current and novel techniques for metal artifact reduction at CT: practical guide for radiologists. Radiographics. 38(2):450-61, 2018
                                                          3. Wellenberg RHH et al: Metal artifact reduction techniques in musculoskeletal CT-imaging. Eur J Radiol. 107:60-9, 2018
                                                          4. Hakky M et al: Application of basic physics principles to clinical neuroradiology: differentiating artifacts from true pathology on MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 201(2):369-77, 2013
                                                          5. Stradiotti P et al: Metal-related artifacts in instrumented spine. Techniques for reducing artifacts in CT and MRI: state of the art. Eur Spine J. 18 Suppl 1:102-8, 2009
                                                          6. Lee MJ et al: Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics. 27(3):791-803, 2007
                                                          7. Buckwalter KA et al: Multichannel CT imaging of orthopedic hardware and implants. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 10(1):86-97, 2006
                                                          8. Chang SD et al: MRI of spinal hardware: comparison of conventional T1-weighted sequence with a new metal artifact reduction sequence. Skeletal Radiol. 30(4):213-8, 2001
                                                          9. Viano AM et al: Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging. 18(3):287-95, 2000
                                                          10. Henk CB et al: The postoperative spine. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 10(4):247-64, 1999
                                                          11. Rudisch A et al: Metallic artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with spinal fusion. A comparison of implant materials and imaging sequences. Spine. 23(6):692-9, 1998
                                                          12. Suh JS et al: Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 171(5):1207-13, 1998
                                                          13. Taber KH et al: Pitfalls and artifacts encountered in clinical MR imaging of the spine. Radiographics. 18(6):1499-521, 1998
                                                          14. Wang JC et al: A comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomographic image quality after the implantation of tantalum and titanium spinal instrumentation. Spine. 23(15):1684-8, 1998
                                                          15. Frazzini VI et al: Internally stabilized spine: optimal choice of frequency-encoding gradient direction during MR imaging minimizes susceptibility artifact from titanium vertebral body screws. Radiology. 204(1):268-72, 1997
                                                          16. Doran SE et al: Internal fixation of the spine using a braided titanium cable: clinical results and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurgery. 38(3):493-6; discussion 496-7, 1996
                                                          17. Ortiz O et al: Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging with titanium implants of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery. 38(4):741-5, 1996
                                                          18. Petersilge CA et al: Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 166(5):1213-8, 1996
                                                          19. Shellock FG: MR imaging and cervical fixation devices: evaluation of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging. 14(9):1093-8, 1996
                                                          20. Tominaga T et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of titanium anterior cervical spine plating systems. Neurosurgery. 36(5):951-5, 1995
                                                          21. Tartaglino LM et al: Metallic artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology. 190(2):565-9, 1994
                                                          22. Vaccaro AR et al: Metallic spinal artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 19(11):1237-42, 1994
                                                          23. Toro VE et al: MR artifacts after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion: a cadaver study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 17(5):696-9, 1993
                                                          24. Yoshino MT et al: Metallic postoperative artifacts on cervical MR. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 14(3):747-9, 1993
                                                          25. Peterman SB et al: Magnetic resonance artifact in the postoperative cervical spine. A potential pitfall. Spine. 16(7):721-5, 1991