Cargando…
Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI
Multi-element transmit arrays with low peak 10 g specific absorption rate (SAR) and high SAR efficiency (defined as [Formula: see text] are essential for ultra-high field (UHF) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) applications. Recently, the adaptation of dipole antennas used as MRI coil elements in mul...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8078892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33360987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2020.3047354 |
_version_ | 1783685121352663040 |
---|---|
author | Woo, Myung Kyun DelaBarre, Lance Waks, Matt Lee, Jingu Lagore, Russell Luke Jungst, Steve Grant, Andrea Eryaman, Yigitcan Ugurbil, Kamil Adriany, Gregor |
author_facet | Woo, Myung Kyun DelaBarre, Lance Waks, Matt Lee, Jingu Lagore, Russell Luke Jungst, Steve Grant, Andrea Eryaman, Yigitcan Ugurbil, Kamil Adriany, Gregor |
author_sort | Woo, Myung Kyun |
collection | PubMed |
description | Multi-element transmit arrays with low peak 10 g specific absorption rate (SAR) and high SAR efficiency (defined as [Formula: see text] are essential for ultra-high field (UHF) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) applications. Recently, the adaptation of dipole antennas used as MRI coil elements in multi-channel arrays has provided the community with a technological solution capable of producing uniform images and low SAR efficiency at these high field strengths. However, human head-sized arrays consisting of dipole elements have a practical limitation to the number of channels that can be used due to radiofrequency (RF) coupling between the antenna elements, as well as, the coaxial cables necessary to connect them. Here we suggest an asymmetric sleeve antenna as an alternative to the dipole antenna. When used in an array as MRI coil elements, the asymmetric sleeve antenna can generate reduced peak 10 g SAR and improved SAR efficiency. To demonstrate the advantages of an array consisting of our suggested design, we compared various performance metrics produced by 16-channel arrays of asymmetric sleeve antennas and dipole antennas with the same dimensions. Comparison data were produced on a phantom in electromagnetic (EM) simulations and verified with experiments at 10.5 Tesla (T). The results produced by the 16-channel asymmetric sleeve antenna array demonstrated 28 % lower peak 10 g SAR and 18.6 % higher SAR efficiency when compared to the 16-channel dipole antenna array. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8078892 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80788922021-04-27 Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI Woo, Myung Kyun DelaBarre, Lance Waks, Matt Lee, Jingu Lagore, Russell Luke Jungst, Steve Grant, Andrea Eryaman, Yigitcan Ugurbil, Kamil Adriany, Gregor IEEE Trans Med Imaging Article Multi-element transmit arrays with low peak 10 g specific absorption rate (SAR) and high SAR efficiency (defined as [Formula: see text] are essential for ultra-high field (UHF) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) applications. Recently, the adaptation of dipole antennas used as MRI coil elements in multi-channel arrays has provided the community with a technological solution capable of producing uniform images and low SAR efficiency at these high field strengths. However, human head-sized arrays consisting of dipole elements have a practical limitation to the number of channels that can be used due to radiofrequency (RF) coupling between the antenna elements, as well as, the coaxial cables necessary to connect them. Here we suggest an asymmetric sleeve antenna as an alternative to the dipole antenna. When used in an array as MRI coil elements, the asymmetric sleeve antenna can generate reduced peak 10 g SAR and improved SAR efficiency. To demonstrate the advantages of an array consisting of our suggested design, we compared various performance metrics produced by 16-channel arrays of asymmetric sleeve antennas and dipole antennas with the same dimensions. Comparison data were produced on a phantom in electromagnetic (EM) simulations and verified with experiments at 10.5 Tesla (T). The results produced by the 16-channel asymmetric sleeve antenna array demonstrated 28 % lower peak 10 g SAR and 18.6 % higher SAR efficiency when compared to the 16-channel dipole antenna array. 2021-04-01 2021-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8078892/ /pubmed/33360987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2020.3047354 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Article Woo, Myung Kyun DelaBarre, Lance Waks, Matt Lee, Jingu Lagore, Russell Luke Jungst, Steve Grant, Andrea Eryaman, Yigitcan Ugurbil, Kamil Adriany, Gregor Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI |
title | Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI |
title_full | Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI |
title_fullStr | Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI |
title_short | Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI |
title_sort | comparison of 16-channel asymmetric sleeve antenna and dipole antenna transceiver arrays at 10.5 tesla mri |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8078892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33360987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2020.3047354 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT woomyungkyun comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri AT delabarrelance comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri AT waksmatt comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri AT leejingu comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri AT lagorerussellluke comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri AT jungststeve comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri AT grantandrea comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri AT eryamanyigitcan comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri AT ugurbilkamil comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri AT adrianygregor comparisonof16channelasymmetricsleeveantennaanddipoleantennatransceiverarraysat105teslamri |