Low Eddy Current RF Shielding Enclosure Designs for 3T MR Applications

Overview

Journal Magn Reson Med

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Radiology

Date 2017 Jun 7

PMID 28585334

Citations 8

Authors

Brian J Lee

Ronald D Watkins

Chen-Ming Chang

Craig S Levin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Magnetic resonance-compatible medical devices operate within the MR environment while benefitting from the superior anatomic information of MRI. Avoiding electromagnetic interference between such instrumentation and the MR system is crucial. In this work, various shielding configurations for positron emission tomography (PET) detectors were studied and analyzed regarding radiofrequency (RF) shielding effectiveness and gradient-induced eddy current performances. However, the results of this work apply to shielding considerations for any MR-compatible devices.

Methods: Six shielding enclosure configurations with various thicknesses, patterns, and materials were designed: solid and segmented copper, phosphor bronze mesh (PBM), and carbon fiber composite (CFC). A series of tests was performed on RF shielding effectiveness and the gradient-induced eddy current.

Results: For the shielding effectiveness, the solid copper with various thickness and PBM configurations yield significantly better shielding effectiveness (>15 dB) compared with CFC and segmented configurations. For the gradient-induced eddy current performance, the solid copper shielding configurations with different thicknesses showed significantly worse results, up to a factor of 3.89 dB, compared with the segmented copper, PBM, and the CFC configurations.

Conclusions: We evaluated the RF shielding effectiveness and the gradient-induced eddy current artifacts of several shielding designs, and only the PBM showed positive outcomes for both aspects. Magn Reson Med 79:1745-1752, 2018. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of the MRI compatibility of PET detectors modules for organ-specific inserts in a 3T and 7T MRI scanner.

Schmidt F, Allen M, Ladebeck R, Breuer J, Judenhofer M, Schmand M Med Phys. 2023; 51(2):991-1006.

PMID: 38150577 PMC: 10923015. DOI: 10.1002/mp.16923.

MRI compatibility study of a prototype radiofrequency penetrable oval PET insert at 3 T.

Akram M, Nishikido F, Levin C, Takyu S, Obata T, Yamaya T Jpn J Radiol. 2023; 42(4):382-390.

PMID: 38110835 DOI: 10.1007/s11604-023-01514-y.

Concurrent function of high-strength dry carbon fiber as resistive heating element and thermistor in ambient air.

Forouhar D, Suthakorn J Heliyon. 2022; 8(12):e12051.

PMID: 36478798 PMC: 9720031. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12051.

OpenTCC: An open source low-cost temperature-control chamber.

Sanchez C, Dessi P, Duffy M, Lens P HardwareX. 2022; 7:e00099.

PMID: 35495215 PMC: 9041232. DOI: 10.1016/j.ohx.2020.e00099.

Evaluation of the radiofrequency performance of a wide-bore 1.5 T positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging body coil for radiotherapy planning.

Branderhorst W, Steensma B, Beijst C, Huijing E, Alborahal C, Versteeg E Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 17:13-19.

PMID: 33898772 PMC: 8057958. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2020.12.002.

References

Slates R, Farahani K, Shao Y, Marsden P, Taylor J, Summers P . A study of artefacts in simultaneous PET and MR imaging using a prototype MR compatible PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 1999; 44(8):2015-27. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/44/8/312. View

Madigan J, Choudhri A, Chen J, SPOTNITZ H, Oz M, Edwards N . Surgical management of the patient with an implanted cardiac device: implications of electromagnetic interference. Ann Surg. 1999; 230(5):639-47. PMC: 1420917. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199911000-00005. View

Alecci M, Jezzard P . Characterization and reduction of gradient-induced eddy currents in the RF shield of a TEM resonator. Magn Reson Med. 2002; 48(2):404-7. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.10226. View

Roguin A, Zviman M, Meininger G, Rodrigues E, Dickfeld T, Bluemke D . Modern pacemaker and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems can be magnetic resonance imaging safe: in vitro and in vivo assessment of safety and function at 1.5 T. Circulation. 2004; 110(5):475-82. PMC: 3410537. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000137121.28722.33. View

De Wilde J, Rivers A, Price D . A review of the current use of magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancy and safety implications for the fetus. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2004; 87(2-3):335-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2004.08.010. View

Kalin R, Stanton M . Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005; 28(4):326-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.50024.x. View

Graf H, Lauer U, Schick F . Eddy-current induction in extended metallic parts as a source of considerable torsional moment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006; 23(4):585-90. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20539. View

Marcu C, Beek A, van Rossum A . Clinical applications of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. CMAJ. 2006; 175(8):911-7. PMC: 1586078. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060566. View

Logothetis N . What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature. 2008; 453(7197):869-78. DOI: 10.1038/nature06976. View

10.

van der Zwaag W, Marques J, Lei H, Just N, Kober T, Gruetter R . Minimization of Nyquist ghosting for echo-planar imaging at ultra-high fields based on a "negative readout gradient" strategy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009; 30(5):1171-8. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21951. View

11.

Peng B, Walton J, Cherry S, Willig-Onwuachi J . Studies of the interactions of an MRI system with the shielding in a combined PET/MRI scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 55(1):265-80. PMC: 2825890. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/1/016. View

12.

Ahn C, Cho Z . Analysis of eddy currents in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1991; 17(1):149-63. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.1910170119. View

13.

Wilkoff B, Bello D, Taborsky M, Vymazal J, Kanal E, Heuer H . Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a pacemaker system designed for the magnetic resonance environment. Heart Rhythm. 2010; 8(1):65-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.10.002. View

14.

Yamamoto S, Watabe H, Kanai Y, Aoki M, Sugiyama E, Watabe T . Interference between PET and MRI sub-systems in a silicon-photomultiplier-based PET/MRI system. Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56(13):4147-59. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/13/026. View

15.

Garcia-Martin J, Gomez-Gil J, Vazquez-Sanchez E . Non-destructive techniques based on eddy current testing. Sensors (Basel). 2011; 11(3):2525-65. PMC: 3231639. DOI: 10.3390/s110302525. View

16.

Histed S, Lindenberg M, Mena E, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Kurdziel K . Review of functional/anatomical imaging in oncology. Nucl Med Commun. 2012; 33(4):349-61. PMC: 3295905. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834ec8a5. View

17.

Bhandiwad A, Cummings K, Crowley M, Woodard P . Cardiovascular magnetic resonance with an MR compatible pacemaker. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013; 15:18. PMC: 3579751. DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-15-18. View

18.

Peng B, Wu Y, Cherry S, Walton J . New shielding configurations for a simultaneous PET/MRI scanner at 7T. J Magn Reson. 2014; 239:50-6. PMC: 3976213. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2013.10.027. View

19.

T M de Rosales R . Potential clinical applications of bimodal PET-MRI or SPECT-MRI agents. J Labelled Comp Radiopharm. 2014; 57(4):298-303. PMC: 4336561. DOI: 10.1002/jlcr.3154. View

20.

Wehrl H, Sauter A, Divine M, Pichler B . Combined PET/MR: a technology becomes mature. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56(2):165-8. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.114.150318. View