155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33277671)
1. 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]
2. Development of an Apparatus for Digital Measurement of Magnetically Induced Torque on Medical Implants to Facilitate the Application of the ASTM F2213 Standard.
Heinrich A; Dorschel J; Mohammad Mashoor M; Guttler F; Teichgraber U
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2019 Dec; 66(12):3420-3425. PubMed ID: 30892195
[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. 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]
5. 3-T MRI safety assessments of magnetic dental attachments and castable magnetic alloys.
Hasegawa M; Miyata K; Abe Y; Ishii T; Ishigami T; Ohtani K; Nagai E; Ohyama T; Umekawa Y; Nakabayashi S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(6):20150011. PubMed ID: 25785821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Comparison Study on Differences between the Latest Edition of ASTM Standards and YY/T 0987-2016 Series Standards for Magnetic Resonance Compatibility of Surgical Implants].
Yin Y; Deng J; Wu X
Zhongguo Yi Liao Qi Xie Za Zhi; 2022 Jul; 46(4):441-448. PubMed ID: 35929163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cobalt-chrome and titanium alloy rods provide similar coronal and sagittal correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Sabah Y; Clément JL; Solla F; Rosello O; Rampal V
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res; 2018 Nov; 104(7):1073-1077. PubMed ID: 30193983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Needle Heating During Interventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 1.5- and 3.0-T Field Strengths.
Khodarahmi I; Bonham LW; Weiss CR; Fritz J
Invest Radiol; 2020 Jun; 55(6):396-404. PubMed ID: 32369319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. MRI safety and imaging artifacts evaluated for a cannulated screw used for guided growth surgery.
Thompson RM; Fowler E; Culo B; Shellock FG
Magn Reson Imaging; 2020 Feb; 66():219-225. PubMed ID: 31704394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Radiofrequency heating and magnetically induced displacement of dental magnetic attachments during 3.0 T MRI.
Miyata K; Hasegawa M; Abe Y; Tabuchi T; Namiki T; Ishigami T
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2012 Dec; 41(8):668-74. PubMed ID: 22499128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Magnetic Resonance Safety Evaluation of a Novel Alumina Matrix Composite Ceramic Knee and Image Artifact Comparison to a Metal Knee Implant of Analogous Design.
Mödinger Y; Anttila ED; Baker GM; Gross DC; Porporati AA
Arthroplast Today; 2023 Aug; 22():101170. PubMed ID: 37521740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of MRI issues for a new cerebral spinal fluid shunt, gravitational valve (GV).
Moghtader D; Crawack HJ; Miethke C; Dörlemann Z; Shellock FG
Magn Reson Imaging; 2017 Dec; 44():8-14. PubMed ID: 28735732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Metallic neurosurgical implants: evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5-Tesla.
Shellock FG
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2001 Sep; 14(3):295-9. PubMed ID: 11536406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessment of passive cardiovascular implant devices for MRI compatibility.
Walsh EG; Brott BC; Johnson VY; Venugopalan R; Anayiotos A
Technol Health Care; 2008; 16(4):233-45. PubMed ID: 18776600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Heating of Hip Arthroplasty Implants During Metal Artifact Reduction MRI at 1.5- and 3.0-T Field Strengths.
Khodarahmi I; Rajan S; Sterling R; Koch K; Kirsch J; Fritz J
Invest Radiol; 2021 Apr; 56(4):232-243. PubMed ID: 33074932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
