ArticleBiomedical journal2019
A study on observed ultrasonic motor-induced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) artifacts.
Article in Biomedical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sweet dreams: How mini-invasive surgery tackles obstructive sleep apnea.Biomedical journal · 2019Article
- Effect of Magnetic Resonance Imaging on the Motion Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-compatible Focused Ultrasound Robotic System.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided robot-assisted interventions requires full control and high precision of assistive devices. Because many currently available tools are not MRI-compatible, the characterization of existing tools and development of new ones are necessary. The purpose of this research is to identify and minimize the image artifacts generated by a USM in MR images.
methodsThe behavior of an ultrasonic motor (USM), the most common MRI-safe actuator, in a high-field scanner was investigated. The motor was located in three orientations with respect to the bore axis with the power on or off. The induced image artifacts were compared across four sequences. Three artifact reduction methods (employing ultrashort sequences, slice thickness reductions, and bandwidth increments) were tested.
resultsSignal voids, pileups, and geometric distortions were observed when the motor was off. The artifact size was minimal when the motor shaft was aligned with the bore axis. In addition to the above artifacts, zipper and motion artifacts were noted when the motor was running, and these artifacts increased with increasing motor speed. Increasing the bandwidth slightly reduced the artifacts. However, decreasing the slice thickness from 5 mm to 3 mm and from 5 mm to 1 mm reduced artifact size from 30% to 40% and from 60% to 75%, respectively.
conclusionThe image artifacts were due to the non-homogenous nature of the static and gradient fields caused by the motor structure. The operating motor interferes with the RF field, causing zipper and motion artifacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.