Metal artifact suppression at the hip: diagnostic performance at 3.0 T versus 1.5 Tesla

Lorenzo Nardo, Misung Han, Martin Kretschmar, Michele Guindani, Kevin Koch, Thomas Vail, Roland Krug, Thomas M. Link

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations


Purpose: This work aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of a metal artifact suppression sequence (MAVRIC-SL) for imaging of hip arthroplasties (HA) at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T) field strength. Methods: Eighteen patients (10 females; aged 27–74) with HA were examined at 3.0 and 1.5 T within 3 weeks. The sequence protocol included 3D-MAVRIC-SL PD (coronal), 3D-MAVRIC-SL STIR (axial), FSE T1, FSE PD and STIR sequences. Anatomical structures and pathological findings were assessed independently by two radiologists. Artifact extent and technical quality (image quality, fat saturation and geometric distortion) were also evaluated. Findings at 1.5 and 3.0 T were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: While image quality was better at 1.5 T, visualization of anatomic structures and clinical abnormalities was not significantly different using the two field strengths (p > 0.05). Fat suppression and amount of artifacts were significantly better at 1.5 T (p  < 0.01). Inter- and intra-reader agreement for different anatomic details, image quality and visualization of abnormalities ranged from k = 0.62 to k = 1.00. Conclusion: MAVRIC-SL at 1.5 T had a comparable diagnostic performance when compared MAVRIC-SL at 3.0 T; however, the higher field strength was associated with larger artifacts, limited image quality and worse fat saturation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1609-1616
Number of pages8
JournalSkeletal Radiology
Issue number11
StatePublished - Nov 26 2015
Externally publishedYes


  • Hip
  • MRI
  • Pain
  • Surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Metal artifact suppression at the hip: diagnostic performance at 3.0 T versus 1.5 Tesla'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this