Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Radiology Research and Practice
Volume 2011, Article ID 478175, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/478175
Research Article

MR Angiography of Peripheral Arterial Stents: In Vitro Evaluation of 22 Different Stent Types

Department of Clinical Radiology, University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Str. 33, 48149 Münster, Germany

Received 13 May 2010; Accepted 27 June 2010

Academic Editor: Andreas Horst Mahnken

Copyright © 2011 Matthias C. Burg et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. S. P. Karas, M. B. Gravanis, E. C. Santoian, K. A. Robinson, K. A. Anderberg, and S. B. King III, “Coronary intimal proliferation after balloon injury and stenting in swine: an animal model of restenosis,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 467–474, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. D. Vorwerk, R. W. Günther, K. Schürmann, and G. Wendt, “Aortic and iliac stenoses: follow-up results of stent placement after insufficient balloon angioplasty in 118 cases,” Radiology, vol. 198, no. 1, pp. 45–48, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. Z. Morvay, E. Nagy, R. Bagi, G. Ábrahám, R. Sipka, and A. Palkó, “Sonographic follow-up after visceral artery stenting,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1057–1064, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. S. C. Kramer, J. Görich, A. J. Aschoff et al., “Diagnostic value of spiral-CT angiography in comparison with digital subtraction angiography before and after peripheral vascular intervention,” Angiology, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 599–606, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. C. Herzog, C. Grebe, A. Mahnken et al., “Peripheral artery stent visualization and in-stent stenosis analysis in 16-row computed tomography: an in-vitro evaluation,” European Radiology, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 2276–2283, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. S. G. Ruehm, T. F. Hany, T. Pfammatter, E. Schneider, M. Ladd, and J. F. Debatin, “Pelvic and lower extremity arterial imaging: diagnostic performance of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 174, no. 4, pp. 1127–1135, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. E. Sueyoshi, I. Sakamoto, Y. Matsuoka et al., “Aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries: comparison of three-dimensional dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR angiography and conventional angiography,” Radiology, vol. 210, no. 3, pp. 683–688, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. Lenhart, M. Völk, C. Manke et al., “Stent appearance at contrast-enhanced MR angiography: in vitro examination with 14 stents,” Radiology, vol. 217, no. 1, pp. 173–178, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. Link, J. C. Steffens, J. Brossmann, J. Graessner, S. Hackethal, and M. Heller, “Iliofemoral arterial occlusive disease: contrast-enhanced MR angiography for preinterventional evaluation and follow-up after stent placement,” Radiology, vol. 212, no. 2, pp. 371–377, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. D. Maintz, H. Kugel, F. Schellhammer, and P. Landwehr, “In vitro evaluation of intravascular stent artifacts in three-dimensional MR angiography,” Investigative Radiology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 218–224, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. O. W. Hamer, T. Finkenzeller, I. Borisch et al., “In vivo evaluation of patency and in-stent stenoses after implantation of nitinol stents in iliac arteries using MR angiography,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 185, no. 5, pp. 1282–1288, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. D. Maintz, B. Tombach, K.-U. Juergens, S. Weigel, W. Heindel, and R. Fischbach, “Revealing in-stent stenoses of the iliac arteries: comparison of multidetector CT with MR angiography and digital radiographic angiography in a phantom model,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 179, no. 5, pp. 1319–1322, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. T. Allkemper, P. Reimer, G. Schuierer, and P. E. Peters, “Study of susceptibility-induced artefacts in GRASE with different echo train length,” European Radiology, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 834–838, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. T. Klemm, S. Duda, J. Machann et al., “MR imaging in the presence of vascular stents: a systematic assessment of artifacts for various stent orientations, sequence types, and field strengths,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 606–615, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. J. M. A. Meyer, A. Buecker, E. Spuentrup et al., “Improved in-stent magnetic resonance angiography with high flip angle excitation,” Investigative Radiology, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 677–681, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. C. J. G. Bakker, R. Bhagwandien, M. A. Moerland, and L. M. P. Ramos, “Simulation of susceptibility artifacts in 2D and 3D Fourier transform spin-echo and gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging,” Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 767–774, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. L. W. Bartels, H. F. M. Smits, C. J. G. Bakker, and M. A. Viergever, “MR imaging of vascular stents: effects of susceptibility, flow, and radiofrequency eddy currents,” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 365–371, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. F. Schenck, “The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds,” Medical Physics, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 815–850, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. C. R. Camacho, D. B. Plewes, and R. M. Henkelman, “Nonsusceptibility artifacts due to metallic objects in MR imaging,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 75–88, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. B. Buerke, T. Allkemper, H. Kugel et al., “Qualitative and quantitative analysis of routinely postprocessed (CLEAR) CE-MRA data sets. Are SNR and CNR calculations reliable?” Academic Radiology, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1111–1117, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. A. Wall, H. Kugel, R. Bachman et al., “3.0 T vs. 1.5 T MR angiography: in vitro comparison of intravascular stent artifacts,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 772–779, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. S. C. Krämer, A. Wall, D. Maintz, R. Bachmann, H. Kugel, and W. Heindel, “3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance angiography of endovascular aortic stent grafts: phantom measurements in comparison with 1.5 Tesla,” Investigative Radiology, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 413–417, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus