These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31572981)

  • 1. Quantification of metal-induced susceptibility artifacts associated with ultrahigh-field magnetic resonance imaging of spinal implants.
    Chiba Y; Murakami H; Sasaki M; Endo H; Yamabe D; Kinno D; Doita M
    JOR Spine; 2019 Sep; 2(3):e1064. PubMed ID: 31572981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Evaluation of MR issues for the latest standard brands of orthopedic metal implants: plates and screws.
    Zou YF; Chu B; Wang CB; Hu ZY
    Eur J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 84(3):450-457. PubMed ID: 25544555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. New-Generation Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Hip Arthroplasty Implants Using Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction: First In Vitro Experience at 0.55 T and Comparison With 1.5 T.
    Khodarahmi I; Brinkmann IM; Lin DJ; Bruno M; Johnson PM; Knoll F; Keerthivasan MB; Chandarana H; Fritz J
    Invest Radiol; 2022 Aug; 57(8):517-526. PubMed ID: 35239614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) artefacts in hip prostheses: a comparison of different prosthetic compositions.
    Panfili E; Pierdicca L; Salvolini L; Imperiale L; Dubbini J; Giovagnoni A
    Radiol Med; 2014 Feb; 119(2):113-20. PubMed ID: 24297575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomographic image quality after the implantation of tantalum and titanium spinal instrumentation.
    Wang JC; Yu WD; Sandhu HS; Tam V; Delamarter RB
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1998 Aug; 23(15):1684-8. PubMed ID: 9704376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessment of magnetic field interactions and radiofrequency-radiation-induced heating of metallic spinal implants in 7 T field.
    Tsukimura I; Murakami H; Sasaki M; Endo H; Yamabe D; Oikawa R; Doita M
    J Orthop Res; 2017 Aug; 35(8):1831-1837. PubMed ID: 27769107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Metallic spinal artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging.
    Vaccaro AR; Chesnut RM; Scuderi G; Healy JF; Massie JB; Garfin SR
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1994 Jun; 19(11):1237-42. PubMed ID: 8073315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Comparison of metal artifact reduction techniques in magnetic resonance imaging of carbon-reinforced PEEK and titanium spinal implants.
    Osterhoff G; Huber FA; Graf LC; Erdlen F; Pape HC; Sprengel K; Guggenberger R
    Acta Radiol; 2022 Aug; 63(8):1062-1070. PubMed ID: 34229463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Magnetic resonance imaging metallic artifact of commonly encountered surgical implants and foreign material.
    Sutherland-Smith J; Tilley B
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2012; 53(3):312-7. PubMed ID: 22277053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Contrastive analysis of artifacts produced by metal dental crowns in 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging with six sequences].
    Lan G; Yunmin L; Pu W; Haili H
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2016 Jun; 34(3):277-80. PubMed ID: 27526453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. In vitro assessment of knee MRI in the presence of metal implants comparing MAVRIC-SL and conventional fast spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T field strength.
    Liebl H; Heilmeier U; Lee S; Nardo L; Patsch J; Schuppert C; Han M; Rondak IC; Banerjee S; Koch K; Link TM; Krug R
    J Magn Reson Imaging; 2015 May; 41(5):1291-9. PubMed ID: 24912802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. SEMAC-VAT and MSVAT-SPACE sequence strategies for metal artifact reduction in 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging.
    Ai T; Padua A; Goerner F; Nittka M; Gugala Z; Jadhav S; Trelles M; Johnson RF; Lindsey RW; Li X; Runge VM
    Invest Radiol; 2012 May; 47(5):267-76. PubMed ID: 22266987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Magnetic resonance imaging in cadaver dogs with metallic vertebral implants at 3 Tesla: evaluation of the WARP-turbo spin echo sequence.
    Griffin JF; Archambault NS; Mankin JM; Wall CR; Thompson JA; Padua A; Purdy D; Kerwin SC
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Nov; 38(24):E1548-53. PubMed ID: 23921320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical validation of Wave-CAIPI susceptibility-weighted imaging for routine brain MRI at 1.5 T.
    Conklin J; Figueiro Longo MG; Tabari A; Lio Goncalves Filho A; Liu W; Splitthoff DN; Lo WC; Cauley SF; Setsompop K; Schaefer PW; Kirsch JE; Rapalino O; Huang SY
    Eur Radiol; 2022 Oct; 32(10):7128-7135. PubMed ID: 35925387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies.
    Suh JS; Jeong EK; Shin KH; Cho JH; Na JB; Kim DH; Han CD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Nov; 171(5):1207-13. PubMed ID: 9798849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Quantification of susceptibility artifacts produced on high-field magnetic resonance images by various biomaterials used for neurosurgical implants. Technical note.
    Matsuura H; Inoue T; Konno H; Sasaki M; Ogasawara K; Ogawa A
    J Neurosurg; 2002 Dec; 97(6):1472-5. PubMed ID: 12507151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. MRI following scoliosis surgery? An analysis of implant heating, displacement, torque, and susceptibility artifacts.
    Heinrich A; Reinhold M; Güttler FV; Matziolis G; Teichgräber UK; Zippelius T; Strube P
    Eur Radiol; 2021 Jun; 31(6):4298-4307. PubMed ID: 33277671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.