Artifacts in cranial MRI caused by extracranial foreign bodies and analysis of these foreign bodies

Selim Kayaci; Ahmet Tabak; Irmak Durur-Subasi; Tugba Eldes; Vaner Koksal; Murat Sirin; Yusuf Kemal Arslan

doi:10.4103/ijri.IJRI_211_18

Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2019; 29(03): 299-304
DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_211_18

Miscellaenous

Artifacts in cranial MRI caused by extracranial foreign bodies and analysis of these foreign bodies

Authors

Selim Kayaci

Departments of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan University, Erzincan
Ahmet Tabak

Department of Radiology, Dışkapı Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
Irmak Durur-Subasi

Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Sinop University
Tugba Eldes

Departments of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University
Vaner Koksal

Departments of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University
Murat Sirin

Department of Physics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize
Yusuf Kemal Arslan

Departments of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan University, Erzincan

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of our study was to conduct a chemical analysis of extracranial foreign bodies (FBs) causing artifacts in cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to investigate the association between chemical composition, magnetic susceptibility, and artifact size. Materials and Methods: A total of 12 patients were included in the study. The FBs responsible for the artifacts were visualized using cranial computed tomography (CT). Artifact-causing FBs were removed from the scalps of 10 patients and analyzed using scanning electron microscope with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), X-ray diffraction spectroscopy (X-RD), and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR). The magnetic susceptibility of the samples was determined using the reference standard material MnCl₂.6H₂O. The volume of the MRI artifacts was measured in cubic centimeters (cm³). Results: EDS results demonstrated that the mean Fe ratio was 5.82% in the stone samples and 0.08% in the glass samples. Although no phase peaks were detected in the X-RD spectra of the glass samples, peaks of Fe₂O₃, Al₂Ca (SiO₄) were detected in the X-RD spectra of the stone samples. The FT-IR spectra revealed metal oxide peaks corresponding to Fe, Al, in the stone samples and peaks confirming Al₂SiO₅and Na₂SiO₃structures in the glass samples. The mean volumes of the MRI artifacts produced by the stone and glass samples were 5.9 cm³ and 2.5 cm³, respectively. Conclusions: Artifacts caused by extracranial FBs containing metal/metal oxide components are directly associated with their chemical composition and the artifact size are also related to element composition and magnetic susceptibility.

Keywords

Artifact - glass - magnetism - magnetic resonance imaging - stone

Full Text

References

References
1 Joseph PM, Atlas SW. Artifacts in MR. In: Atlas SW. editor Magnetic Resonance İmaging of the Brain and Spine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, Wilkins; 2002: 239-75
2 Pusey E, Lufkin RB, Brown RK, Solomon MA, Stark DD, Tarr RW. et al. WN. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts: Mechanism and clinical significance. RadioGraphics 1986; 6: 891-911
3 Mathew CA, Maller S, Waran M. Interactions between magnetic resonance imaging and dental material. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2013; 5: 113-6
4 Shafiei F, Honda E, Takahashi H, Sasaki T. Artifacts from dental casting alloys in magnetic resonance imaging. J Dent Res 2003; 82: 602-6
5 Lakits A, Prokesch R, Scholda C, Bankier A, Weninger F, Imhof H. Multiplanar imaging in the preoperative assessment of metallic intraocular foreign bodies. Helical computed tomography versus conventional computed tomography. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1679-85
6 Acer N, Sahin B, Bas O, Ertekin T, Usanmaz M. Comparison of three methods for the estimation of total intracranial volume: Stereologic, planimetric, and anthropometric approaches. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 58: 48-53
7 Teitelbaum GP, Bradley Jr WG, Klein BD. MR ımaging artifacts, ferromagnetism, and magnetic torque of ıntravascular filters, stents, and coils. Radiology 1988; 166: 657-64
8 Somasundaram K, Kalavathi P. Analysis of ımaging artifacts in MR brain ımages. Oriental J Computer Sci Technol 2012; 5: 135-41
9 Bartels LW, Smits HFM, Bakker CJG, Viergever MA. MR imaging of vascular stents: Effects of susceptibility, flow, and radiofrequency eddy currents. JVIR 2001; 12: 365-71
10 Bennett LH, Wang PS, Donahue MJ. Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging from metals. J Appl Phys 1996; 79: 4712-4
11 Camacho CR, Plewes DB, Henkelman RM. Nonsusceptibility artifacts due to metallic objects in MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imag 1995; 5: 75-88
12 Ganapathi M, Joseph G, Savage R, Jones AR, Timms B, Lyons K. MRI susceptibility artefacts related to scaphoid screws: The effect of screw type, screw orientation and imaging parameters. J Hand Surg (British and European Volume) 2002; 27: 165-70
13 Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ, Janzen DL, Mackay AL, Xiang QS. et al. Metal artifact reduction sequence: Early clinical applications. Radiographics 2000; 20: 699-712
14 Cho ZH, Kim DJ, Kim YK. Total inhomogeneity correction including chemical shifts and susceptibility by view angle tilting. Med Phys 1988; 15: 7-11
15 Czerny C, Krestan C, Imhof H, Trattnig S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 214-20
16 Suh JS, Jeong EK, Shin KH, Cho JH, Na JB, Kim DH. et al. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: Experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 1207-13
17 Tetsumura A, Honda E, Sasaki T, Kino K. Metallic residues as a source of artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of the temporomandibular joint. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 186-90
18 Heindel W, Friedmann G, Bunke J, Thomas R, Firsching R, Ernestus RI. Artifacts in MR imaging after surgical intervention. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996; 10: 596-9
19 Alanen A, Bondestam S, Kome M. Artifacts in MR imaging caused by small quantities of powdered iron. Acta Radiol 1995; 36: 92-5
20 Mekki A, Khattak GD, Holland D, Chinkhota M, Wenger LE. Structure and magnetic properties of vanadium–sodium silicate glasses. J Non Cryst Solids 2003; 318: 193-201
21 Mazurin OV. Glass properties: Compilation, evaluation, and prediction. J Non Cryst Solids 2005; 351: 1103-12
22 Moosbrugger C. ASM Ready Reference: Electrical and Magnetic Properties of Metals. ASM International; Materials Park, OH 44073-0002: Printed in the United States of America 2000
23 Wijn HPJ. editor Magnetic Properties of Metals, d-Elements, Alloys and Compounds. Springer-Verlag; Berlin Heidelberg: 1991: 1-21
24 Theil Kuhn L, Bojesen A, Timmermann L, Meedom Nielsen M, Morup S. Structural and magnetic properties of core–shell iron–iron oxide nanoparticles. J Phys Condens Mat 2002; 14: 49
25 Shokrollahi H, Janghorban K. Soft magnetic composite materials (SMCs). J Mater Process Technol 2007; 189: 1-12