Advertisement

Passive Visualization of Needles

  • H.-B Gehl
  • C. Frahm
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)

Abstract

Today, two forms of visualization of needles or any other interventional device are possible: active visualization and passive visualization. The first is a technically ambitious procedure owing to the need for equipment, such as a second high-frequency channel, and special hard- and software for superimposing the actively visualized device on an MR image. The second method is the traditional way of performing intervention in radiology by using the direct depiction of the device itself in an X-ray beam or of the artifact it causes in sonography or computed tomography (Duckwiler et al. 1989; Fischer et al. 1994; Lufkin et al. 1987). The advantage of this concept is its straightforwardness, because no specialized hardware or software is necessary. In passive visualization of needles in MRI some difficulties can be encountered.

Keywords

Spin Echo Turbo Spin Echo Gradient Echo Main Magnetic Field Large Artifact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Duckwiler G, Lufkin RB, Teresi L, Spickler E, Dion J, Vinuela F, Bentson J, Hanafee W (1989) Head and neck lesions: MR-guided aspiration biopsy. Radiology 170:519–522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Keating D, Bruhn H, Döler W, Oestmann JW, Grabbe E (1994) MR-guided biopsy of suspect breast lesions with a simple stereotaxic add-on device for surface coils. Radiology 192:272–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Frahm C, Gehl HB, Melchert UH, Weiss HD (1996) Visualization of magnetic resonance compatible needles at 1.5 and 0.2 Tesla. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 19:335–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hendrick RE, Russ PD, Simon JH (1993) MRI: principles and artifacts. Raven Press, New York, pp 144–179Google Scholar
  5. Lufkin R, Teresi L, Hanafee W (1987) New needle for MR-guided aspiration cytology of the head and neck. AJR 149:380–382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Lufkin R, Teresi L, Chiu L, Hanafee W (1988) A technique for MR-guided needle placement. AJR 151:193–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Mueller PR, Stark DD, Simeone JF, Saini S, Butch RJ, Edelman RR, Wittenberg J, Ferrucci JT (1986) MR-guided aspiration biopsy: needle design and clinical trials. Radiology 161:605–609PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. New PFJ, Rosen BR, Brady TJ, Buonanno FS, Kistler JP, Burt CT, Hinshaw WS, Newhouse JH, Pohost GM, Taveras JM (1983) Potential hazards and artifacts of ferromagnetic and non-ferromagnetic surgical and dental materials and devices in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 147:139–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Wesbey G, Edelman RR, Harris R (1990) Artifacts in MR-imaging: description, causes, and solutions. In: Edelman RR, Hesselink JR (eds). Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 74–108Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.-B Gehl
    • 1
  • C. Frahm
    • 1
  1. 1.Im Institute of RadiologyLübeck Medical UniversityLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations