Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI

26Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Multi-element transmit arrays with low peak 10 g specific absorption rate (SAR) and high SAR efficiency (defined as ( \text{B}_{{1}}^{+}/\surd{\text {peak}} SAR {\text {10g}}{)} 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Woo, M. K., Delabarre, L., Waks, M., Lee, J., Lagore, R. L., Jungst, S., … Adriany, G. (2021). Comparison of 16-Channel Asymmetric Sleeve Antenna and Dipole Antenna Transceiver Arrays at 10.5 Tesla MRI. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 40(4), 1147–1156. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2020.3047354

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free