160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17414986)
1. Postfusion magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by a titanium, cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and carbon intervertebral disc spacer.
Ernstberger T; Heidrich G
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2007 Apr; 20(2):154-9. PubMed ID: 17414986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The interobserver-validated relevance of intervertebral spacer materials in MRI artifacting.
Ernstberger T; Heidrich G; Bruening T; Krefft S; Buchhorn G; Klinger HM
Eur Spine J; 2007 Feb; 16(2):179-85. PubMed ID: 16463200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Implant detectibility of intervertebral disc spacers in post fusion MRI: evaluation of the MRI scan quality by using a scoring system--an in vitro study.
Ernstberger T; Heidrich G; Schultz W; Grabbe E
Neuroradiology; 2007 Feb; 49(2):103-9. PubMed ID: 17086407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Postimplantation MRI with cylindric and cubic intervertebral test implants: evaluation of implant shape, material, and volume in MRI artifacting--an in vitro study.
Ernstberger T; Heidrich G; Buchhorn G
Spine J; 2007; 7(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 17482121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. In-vitro MRI detectability of interbody test spacers made of carbon fibre-reinforced polymers, titanium and titanium-coated carbon fibre-reinforced polymers.
Ernstberger T; Buchhorn G; Baums MH; Heidrich G
Acta Orthop Belg; 2007 Apr; 73(2):244-9. PubMed ID: 17515239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Artifacts in spine magnetic resonance imaging due to different intervertebral test spacers: an in vitro evaluation of magnesium versus titanium and carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers as biomaterials.
Ernstberger T; Buchhorn G; Heidrich G
Neuroradiology; 2009 Aug; 51(8):525-9. PubMed ID: 19468722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging with titanium implants of the thoracic and lumbar spine.
Ortiz O; Pait TG; McAllister P; Sauter K
Neurosurgery; 1996 Apr; 38(4):741-5. PubMed ID: 8692394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intervertebral test spacers: an experimental comparison of magnesium versus titanium and carbon fiber reinforced polymers as biomaterials.
Ernstberger T; Buchhorn G; Heidrich G
Ir J Med Sci; 2010 Mar; 179(1):107-11. PubMed ID: 19693644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging artifact with cobalt-chromium versus titanium spinal instrumentation: presented at the 2013 Joint Spine Section Meeting. Clinical article.
Ahmad FU; Sidani C; Fourzali R; Wang MY
J Neurosurg Spine; 2013 Nov; 19(5):629-36. PubMed ID: 24053373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of magnetic and radiographic imaging artifact after using three types of metal rods: stainless steel, titanium, and vitallium.
Knott PT; Mardjetko SM; Kim RH; Cotter TM; Dunn MM; Patel ST; Spencer MJ; Wilson AS; Tager DS
Spine J; 2010 Sep; 10(9):789-94. PubMed ID: 20619749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Magnetic resonance imaging of artificial lumbar disks: safety and metal artifacts.
Yang CW; Liu L; Wang J; Dong AS; Lu JP; He SS; Li M
Chin Med J (Engl); 2009 Apr; 122(8):911-6. PubMed ID: 19493413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The radiographic and imaging characteristics of porous tantalum implants within the human cervical spine.
Levi AD; Choi WG; Keller PJ; Heiserman JE; Sonntag VK; Dickman CA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1998 Jun; 23(11):1245-50; discussion 1251. PubMed ID: 9636978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Preclinical evaluation by flat-panel detector-based volumetric CT versus MRI of intervertebral spacers implanted in a porcine model.
Ernstberger T; Heidrich G; Dullin C; Buchhorn G; Grabbe E
Spine J; 2007; 7(3):360-7. PubMed ID: 17482122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Magnetic resonance imaging after pedicular screw fixation of the spine.
Ebraheim NA; Savolaine ER; Stitgen SH; Jackson WT
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1992 Jun; (279):133-7. PubMed ID: 1600647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance imaging applications at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: a comparative study.
Schmidt GP; Wintersperger B; Graser A; Baur-Melnyk A; Reiser MF; Schoenberg SO
Invest Radiol; 2007 Jun; 42(6):449-59. PubMed ID: 17507818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging.
Krätzig T; Mende KC; Mohme M; Kniep H; Dreimann M; Stangenberg M; Westphal M; Gauer T; Eicker SO
Neurosurg Rev; 2021 Aug; 44(4):2163-2170. PubMed ID: 32930911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Metallic artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with spinal fusion. A comparison of implant materials and imaging sequences.
Rudisch A; Kremser C; Peer S; Kathrein A; Judmaier W; Daniaux H
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1998 Mar; 23(6):692-9. PubMed ID: 9549791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) score assessed with an isotropic three-dimensional true fast imaging with steady-state precession sequence at 3.0 Tesla.
Welsch GH; Zak L; Mamisch TC; Resinger C; Marlovits S; Trattnig S
Invest Radiol; 2009 Sep; 44(9):603-12. PubMed ID: 19692843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Rivet-like titanium clamps for refixation of bone covers after craniotomy--radiologic identification, safety and image quality in CT and MR studies].
Lerch KD; Morgenstern F; Lau KT; Hoffmann G
Rofo; 1998 Dec; 169(6):601-4. PubMed ID: 9930212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Influence of sequence type on the extent of the susceptibility artifact in MRI--a shoulder specimen study after suture anchor repair].
Herold T; Caro WC; Heers G; Perlick L; Grifka J; Feuerbach S; Nitz W; Lenhart M
Rofo; 2004 Sep; 176(9):1296-301. PubMed ID: 15346265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
