4.5 Article

Experimental Determination of Human Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Thresholds in a 3-Axis Planar Gradient System

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 62, Issue 3, Pages 763-770

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22050

Keywords

planar gradients; gradient systems; magnetic resonance imaging; peripheral nerve stimulation

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 RR15396]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In MRI, strong, rapidly switched gradient fields are desirable because they can be used to reduce imaging time, obtain images with better resolution, or improve image signal-to-noise ratios. Improvements in gradient strength can be made by either increasing the gradient amplifier strength or by enhancing gradient efficiency. Unfortunately, many MRI pulse sequences, in combination with high-performance amplifiers and ex sting gradient hardware, can cause peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). This makes improvements in gradient amplifiers ineffective at increasing safely usable gradient strength. Customized gradient coils are one way to achieve significant improvements in gradient performance. One specific gradient configuration, a planar gradient system, promises improved gradient strength and switching time for cardiac imaging. The PNS thresholds for planar gradients were characterized through human stimulation experiments on all three gradient axes. The specialized gradient was shown to have significantly higher stimulation thresholds than traditional cylindrical designs (y-axis SRmin = 210 +/- 18 mT/m/ms and Delta G(min) = 133 +/- 13 mT/m; x-axis SRmin = 222 +/- 24 mT/m/ms and Delta G(min) = 147 +/- 17 mT/m; z-axis SRmin = 252 +/- 26 mT/m/ms and Delta G(min) = 218 +/- 26 mT/m). This system could be operated at gradient strengths 2 to 3 times higher than cylindrical configurations without causing stimulation. Magn Reson Med 62:763-770, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available