Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2014; 18(01): 012-022
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1365831
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Artifacts in Musculoskeletal MR Imaging

Dinesh R. Singh
1   Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Alexandra Health, Singapore, Republic of Singapore
,
Michael S.M. Chin
1   Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Alexandra Health, Singapore, Republic of Singapore
,
Wilfred C.G. Peh
1   Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Alexandra Health, Singapore, Republic of Singapore
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
10 February 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

MR imaging has become an important diagnostic tool in the evaluation of a vast number of pathologies and is of foremost importance in the evaluation of spine, joints, and soft tissue structures of the musculoskeletal system. MR imaging is susceptible to various artifacts that may affect the image quality or even simulate pathologies. Some of these artifacts have gained special importance with the use of higher field strength magnets and with the increasing need for MR imaging in postoperative patients, especially those with previous joint replacements or metallic implants. Artifacts may arise from patient motion or could be due to periodic motion, such as vascular and cardiac pulsation. Artifacts could also arise from various protocol errors including saturation, wraparound, truncation, shading, partial volume averaging, and radiofrequency interference artifacts. Susceptibility artifact occurs at interfaces with different magnetic susceptibilities and is of special importance with increasing use of metallic joint replacement prostheses. Magic angle phenomenon is a special type of artifact that occurs in musculoskeletal MR imaging. It is essential to recognize these artifacts and to correct them because they may produce pitfalls in image interpretation.

Keywords

chemical shift artifact - magnetic resonance imaging - motion artifact - protocol-error artifacts - susceptibility artifact
 

  • References

  • 1 Dietrich O, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. Artifacts in 3-T MRI: physical background and reduction strategies. Eur J Radiol 2008; 65 (1) 29-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bernstein MA, Huston III J, Ward HA. Imaging artifacts at 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 24 (4) 735-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rutherford EE, Tarplett LJ, Davies EM, Harley JM, King LJ. Lumbar spine fusion and stabilization: hardware, techniques, and imaging appearances. Radiographics 2007; 27 (6) 1737-1749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zhuo J, Gullapalli RP. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: MR artifacts, safety, and quality control. Radiographics 2006; 26 (1) 275-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Smith TB, Nayak KS. MRI artifacts and correction strategies. Imaging Med 2010; 2: 445-457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Peh WCG, Chan JHM. Artifacts in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging: identification and correction. Skeletal Radiol 2001; 30 (4) 179-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Taber KH, Herrick RC, Weathers SW, Kumar AJ, Schomer DF, Hayman LA. Pitfalls and artifacts encountered in clinical MR imaging of the spine. Radiographics 1998; 18 (6) 1499-1521
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Morelli JN, Runge VM, Ai F , et al. An image-based approach to understanding the physics of MR artifacts. Radiographics 2011; 31 (3) 849-866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fink C, Puderbach M, Biederer J , et al. Lung MRI at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: observer preference study and lesion contrast using five different pulse sequences. Invest Radiol 2007; 42 (6) 377-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wood ML, Henkelman RM. MR image artifacts from periodic motion. Med Phys 1985; 12 (2) 143-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Quint DJ, Patel SC, Sanders WP, Hearshen DO, Boulos RS. Importance of absence of CSF pulsation artifacts in the MR detection of significant myelographic block at 1.5 T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1989; 10 (5) 1089-1095
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Larsen DW, Teitelbaum GP, Norman D. Cerebrospinal fluid flow artifact. A possible pitfall on fast-spin-echo MR imaging of the spine simulating intradural pathology. Clin Imaging 1996; 20 (2) 140-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Czervionke LF, Czervionke JM, Daniels DL , et al. Characteristic features of MR truncation artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 9: 815-824
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Levy LM, Di Chiro G, Brooks RA, Dwyer AJ, Wener L, Frank J. Spinal cord artifacts from truncation errors during MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 166 (2) 479-483
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bronskill MJ, McVeigh ER, Kucharczyk W, Henkelman RM. Syrinx-like artifacts on MR images of the spinal cord. Radiology 1988; 166 (2) 485-488
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yousem DM, Janick PA, Atlas SW , et al. Pseudoatrophy of the cervical portion of the spinal cord on MR images: a manifestation of the truncation artifact?. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1990; 11 (2) 373-377
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Breger RK, Czervionke LF, Kass EG , et al. Truncation artifact in MR images of the intervertebral disk. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1988; 9 (5) 825-828
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Turner DA, Rapoport MI, Erwin WD, McGould M, Silvers RI. Truncation artifact: a potential pitfall in MR imaging of the menisci of the knee. Radiology 1991; 179 (3) 629-633
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Erickson SJ, Waldschmidt JG, Czervionke LF, Prost RW. Hyaline cartilage: truncation artifact as a cause of trilaminar appearance with fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-recalled sequences. Radiology 1996; 201 (1) 260-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Frank LR, Brossmann J, Buxton RB, Resnick D. MR imaging truncation artifacts can create a false laminar appearance in cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168 (2) 547-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hyde JS, Jesmanowicz A, Grist TM, Froncisz W, Kneeland JB. Quadrature detection surface coil. Magn Reson Med 1987; 4 (2) 179-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Soila KP, Viamonte Jr M, Starewicz PM. Chemical shift misregistration effect in magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 1984; 153 (3) 819-820
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dwyer AJ, Knop RH, Hoult DI. Frequency shift artifacts in MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1985; 9 (1) 16-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Whitehouse RW, Hutchinson CE, Laitt R, Jenkins JP, Jackson A. The influence of chemical shift artifact on magnetic resonance imaging of the ligamentum flavum at 0.5 tesla. Spine 1997; 22 (2) 200-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Czervionke LF, Daniels DL, Wehrli FW , et al. Magnetic susceptibility artifacts in gradient-recalled echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1988; 9 (6) 1149-1155
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Tsuruda JS, Remley K. Effects of magnetic susceptibility artifacts and motion in evaluating the cervical neural foramina on 3DFT gradient-echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991; 12 (2) 237-241
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Koch KM, Gold GE. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197 (3) 547-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Peterman SB, Hoffman Jr JC, Malko JA. Magnetic resonance artifact in the postoperative cervical spine. A potential pitfall. Spine 1991; 16 (7) 721-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Levitt M, Benjamin V, Kricheff II. Potential misinterpretation of cervical spondylosis with cord compression caused by metallic artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative spine. Neurosurgery 1990; 27 (1) 126-129 ; discussion 129–130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Salazar JL, Misra M, Bloom D, Dobben G. MRI artifacts following anterior cervical diskectomy. Surg Neurol 1997; 48 (1) 23-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Anzai Y, Lufkin RB, Jabour BA, Hanafee WN. Fat-suppression failure artifacts simulating pathology on frequency-selective fat-suppression MR images of the head and neck. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1992; 13 (3) 879-884
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Delfaut EM, Beltran J, Johnson G, Rousseau J, Marchandise X, Cotten A. Fat suppression in MR imaging: techniques and pitfalls. Radiographics 1999; 19 (2) 373-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Patten RM. Vacuum phenomenon: a potential pitfall in the interpretation of gradient-recalled-echo MR images of the shoulder. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162 (6) 1383-1386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gückel C, Nidecker A. The rope ladder: an uncommon artifact and potential pitfall in MR arthrography of the shoulder. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168 (4) 947-950
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Eggers G, Rieker M, Kress B, Fiebach J, Dickhaus H, Hassfeld S. Artefacts in magnetic resonance imaging caused by dental material. MAGMA 2005; 18 (2) 103-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Cha JG, Jin W, Lee MH , et al. Reducing metallic artifacts in postoperative spinal imaging: usefulness of IDEAL contrast-enhanced T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging—phantom and clinical studies. Radiology 2011; 259 (3) 885-893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lee MJ, Kim S, Lee SA , et al. Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics 2007; 27 (3) 791-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Frazzini VI, Kagetsu NJ, Johnson CE, Destian S. Internally stabilized spine: optimal choice of frequency-encoding gradient direction during MR imaging minimizes susceptibility artifact from titanium vertebral body screws. Radiology 1997; 204 (1) 268-272
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Chen CA, Chen W, Goodman SB , et al. New MR imaging methods for metallic implants in the knee: artifact correction and clinical impact. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33 (5) 1121-1127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA. SEMAC: Slice encoding for metal artifact correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62 (1) 66-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Koch KM, Lorbiecki JE, Hinks RS, King KF. A multispectral three-dimensional acquisition technique for imaging near metal implants. Magn Reson Med 2009; 61 (2) 381-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Reeder SB, Pineda AR, Wen Z , et al. Iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL): application with fast spin-echo imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54 (3) 636-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Peh WCG, Chan JHM. The magic angle phenomenon in tendons: effect of varying the MR echo time. Br J Radiol 1998; 71 (841) 31-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Erickson SJ, Cox IH, Hyde JS, Carrera GF, Strandt JA, Estkowski LD. Effect of tendon orientation on MR imaging signal intensity: a manifestation of the “magic angle” phenomenon. Radiology 1991; 181 (2) 389-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Mengiardi B, Pfirrmann CW, Schöttle PB , et al. Magic angle effect in MR imaging of ankle tendons: influence of foot positioning on prevalence and site in asymptomatic subjects and cadaveric tendons. Eur Radiol 2006; 16 (10) 2197-2206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Du J, Pak BC, Znamirowski R , et al. Magic angle effect in magnetic resonance imaging of the Achilles tendon and enthesis. Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 27 (4) 557-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Disler DG, Recht MP, McCauley TR. MR imaging of articular cartilage. Skeletal Radiol 2000; 29 (7) 367-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Xia Y. Magic-angle effect in magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage: a review. Invest Radiol 2000; 35 (10) 602-621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kästel T, Heiland S, Bäumer P, Bartsch AJ, Bendszus M, Pham M. Magic angle effect: a relevant artifact in MR neurography at 3T?. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32 (5) 821-827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Chappell KE, Robson MD, Stonebridge-Foster A , et al. Magic angle effects in MR neurography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004; 25 (3) 431-440
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Hayes CW, Parellada JA. The magic angle effect in musculoskeletal MR imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 8 (1) 51-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Timins ME, Erickson SJ, Estkowski LD , et al. Increased signal in the normal supraspinatus tendon on MR imaging: diagnostic pitfall caused by the magic-angle effect. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165 (1) 109-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar