4.5 Article

Approaching ultimate intrinsic specific absorption rate in radiofrequency shimming using high-permittivity materials at 7 Tesla

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 391-399

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.27022

关键词

Ultimate intrinsic SAR; RF shimming; transmit array; high permittivity material; global SAR

资金

  1. NSF [1453675]
  2. NIH [R01 EB002568, R01 EB0011551, R01 EB021277, R01 EB024536, P41 EB017183]
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Electrical, Commun & Cyber Sys [1453675] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of integrated high-permittivity materials (HPMs) on excitation homogeneity and global specific absorption rate (SAR) for transmit arrays at 7T. MethodsA rapid electrodynamic simulation framework was used to calculate L-curves associated with excitation of a uniform 2D profile in a dielectric sphere. We used ultimate intrinsic SAR as an absolute performance reference to compare different transmit arrays in the presence and absence of a layer of HPM. We investigated the optimal permittivity for the HPM as a function of its thickness, the sample size, and the number of array elements. ResultsAdding a layer of HPM can improve the performance of a 24-element array to match that of a 48-element array without HPM, whereas a 48-element array with HPM can perform as well as a 64-element array without HPM. Optimal relative permittivity values changed based on sample and coil geometry, but were always within a range obtainable with readily available materials (epsilon(r)=100-200). ConclusionIntegration of HPMs could be a practical method to improve RF shimming performance, alternative to increasing the number of coils. The proposed simulation framework could be used to explore the design of novel transmit arrays for head imaging at ultra-high field strength. Magn Reson Med 80:391-399, 2018. (c) 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据