Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

MRI Metal Artefact Reduction (MARS)

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

MRI Metal Artefact Reduction (MARS)

Comprehensive guide to MRI metal artefact reduction techniques for imaging patients with orthopaedic implants including MARS sequences, protocol optimisation, and clinical applications.

Medium Yield
complete
Updated: 2026-01-16
High Yield Overview

MRI Metal Artefact Reduction (MARS)

—Titanium vs Stainless Steel
5x less artefact
—MARS Artefact Reduction
50-90%
—Optimal Field Strength
1.5T preferred over 3T
—View Angle Tilting
—Key technique component

Metal Artefact Mechanisms

Susceptibility: Different magnetic properties cause local field distortion

Signal void: No signal from metal itself

Geometric distortion: Spatial mismapping of signal

Pile-up artefact: Signal displaced and concentrated

Key: MARS techniques address susceptibility and geometric distortion

Critical Must-Knows

  • Metal artefact = signal void + geometric distortion
  • Titanium causes less artefact than stainless steel or cobalt-chrome
  • 1.5T preferred over 3T for metal artefact reduction
  • MARS sequences: SEMAC, MAVRIC, VAT (View Angle Tilting)
  • Increase bandwidth, use spin echo over gradient echo

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    Susceptibility artefact proportional to field strength
  • "
    Stainless steel: 10x more artefact than titanium
  • "
    Short tau inversion recovery (STIR) better than fat-sat near metal
  • "
    Thinner slices and higher matrix reduce artefact
  • "
    ALTR assessment around MoM hips requires MARS MRI

Exam Warning

Understanding metal artefact reduction is increasingly important with the rising number of patients with orthopaedic implants. Know which materials cause most artefact (stainless steel worst), why 1.5T is preferred, and the basic MARS techniques. ALTR assessment around metal-on-metal hips is a common application.

Physics of Metal Artefact

Types of Metal-Induced Artefact

Artefact TypeCauseAppearance
Signal voidNo mobile protons in metalBlack region at metal location
Susceptibility artefactLocal field inhomogeneityBlooming, signal distortion around metal
Geometric distortionFrequency mismappingSpatial displacement of anatomy
Pile-up artefactSignal misregistrationBright bands adjacent to void
Fat-saturation failureOff-resonance effectsIncomplete fat suppression near metal
Mnemonic

MARS = Material, Alignment, Resolution, SequenceFactors Affecting Artefact Severity

M
Material: Stainless steel greater than cobalt-chrome greater than titanium
A
Alignment: Long axis parallel to B0 reduces artefact
R
Resolution: Higher matrix, thinner slices help
S
Sequence: Spin echo better than gradient echo

Memory Hook:Artefact severity is proportional to field strength - use 1.5T over 3T when imaging around metal

Implant Material Properties

Magnetic Susceptibility of Orthopaedic Materials

MaterialSusceptibilityArtefact SeverityCommon Uses
Titanium alloyLowMinimalPlates, screws, stems, spinal implants
Cobalt-chromeModerateModerate-highFemoral heads, tibial trays, bearing surfaces
Stainless steelHighSevereOlder implants, some screws, wires
TantalumLowMinimalTrabecular metal, acetabular augments
Oxinium (Zr)Very lowMinimalCeramic-like bearing surfaces
PEEKNoneNoneSpinal cages, radiolucent

Practical Implications

When possible, choose titanium implants if post-operative MRI is anticipated. For hip surveillance (ALTR), cobalt-chrome MoM bearings cause significant artefact requiring MARS sequences. Total knee replacements with cobalt-chrome femoral components also challenging to image.

Standard Protocol Optimisation

Protocol Adjustments for Metal Artefact

ParameterAdjustmentEffect
Field strengthUse 1.5T over 3TArtefact proportional to B0
Receiver bandwidthIncrease (wide bandwidth)Reduces geometric distortion
Slice thicknessDecrease (thin slices)Reduces through-plane distortion
Matrix sizeIncrease (high resolution)Improves spatial resolution
Sequence typeSpin echo over gradient echoLess susceptibility-sensitive
Fat suppressionSTIR over chemical fat-satSTIR works despite field inhomogeneity
Echo train lengthOptimise (not too long)Balance SNR and blurring

Why 1.5T?

Metal artefact is directly proportional to field strength. 3T produces approximately twice the artefact of 1.5T for the same implant. For routine imaging around metal, 1.5T is preferred despite generally lower SNR.

Why STIR Not Fat-Sat?

Chemical fat saturation relies on uniform magnetic field to selectively excite fat. Metal disrupts field homogeneity causing fat-sat failure. STIR uses inversion recovery (T1 property) which works regardless of field uniformity.

Advanced MARS Techniques

VAT Principle

Applies additional gradient during readout that tilts the view angle. This corrects in-plane geometric distortion caused by metal. Effective for reducing distortion but increases scan time. Often combined with increased bandwidth.

SEMAC (Slice-Encoding for Metal Artefact Correction)

Addresses through-plane (slice direction) distortion. Acquires multiple z-phase encoding steps for each slice. Resolves signal pile-up and slice distortion. Significant scan time increase. GE proprietary name: MAVRIC-SL.

MAVRIC (Multi-Acquisition Variable-Resonance Image Combination)

Acquires images at multiple frequencies to cover the range of off-resonance caused by metal. Combines sub-images to create artefact-reduced composite. Effective for large metal implants. Long scan times. Combined with SEMAC in MAVRIC-SL.

WARP (Siemens)

Siemens proprietary MARS technique. Combines VAT with optimised bandwidth and slice profile correction. Faster than SEMAC/MAVRIC with good artefact reduction. Available as standard option on many Siemens scanners.

MARS Technique Comparison

TechniqueMechanismScan TimeAvailability
VATIn-plane distortion correctionModerate increaseWidely available
SEMACThrough-plane encodingSignificant increaseGE, Siemens, Philips
MAVRICMulti-frequency acquisitionSignificant increaseGE
MAVRIC-SLCombined SEMAC + MAVRICLongGE
WARPVAT + optimisationModerate increaseSiemens

Clinical Applications

Adverse Local Tissue Reaction (ALTR)

Metal-on-metal hip bearings can cause ALTR (metallosis, pseudotumour). MRI with MARS essential for assessment. Look for: solid or cystic masses, fluid collections, muscle oedema/atrophy, tendon damage, osteolysis. Compare with blood metal ion levels for management decisions.

ALTR MRI Findings

FindingMRI AppearanceSignificance
PseudotumourCystic or solid mass adjacent to hipMay compress neurovascular structures
Fluid collectionT2 bright, may have debrisPeriarticular, trochanteric bursa
Muscle damageOedema (T2 high) or atrophy (T1 fat)Abductors commonly affected
Tendon disruptionDiscontinuity, retractionMay affect surgical approach
MetallosisLow signal debris, synovial thickeningMetal particle deposition

Post-Fusion Spine MRI

Assessment for adjacent segment disease, recurrent stenosis, or infection around spinal instrumentation. MARS helps visualise neural structures. Titanium pedicle screws cause less artefact than stainless steel. STIR essential for infection assessment. CT may complement MRI for bone detail.

PJI Assessment

MRI with MARS can assess soft tissue around arthroplasty for abscess, sinus tracts, and inflammatory changes. Limited by metal artefact for bone-implant interface. Nuclear medicine (WBC/marrow scan) often preferred for PJI diagnosis. MRI better for soft tissue extent and surgical planning.

Protocol Selection

Recommended Protocols by Indication

IndicationField StrengthKey SequencesMARS Technique
MoM hip surveillance1.5TPD fat-sat, STIR, T1MARS (MAVRIC, SEMAC, WARP)
THA periprosthetic soft tissue1.5TPD, STIRVAT or MARS
Post-fusion spine1.5TT1, T2, STIR sagittal/axialVAT, MARS if available
Fracture fixation1.5TSTIR (oedema), T1Standard optimisation often sufficient
Shoulder arthroplasty1.5TPD fat-sat, STIRMARS if available

When Standard MRI Is Adequate

Small titanium screws and plates often produce acceptable images with standard optimised protocols (increased bandwidth, thin slices, spin echo). MARS sequences add scan time and are most valuable for large cobalt-chrome implants like hip replacements.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"A patient with a painful metal-on-metal hip replacement is referred for MRI. Blood cobalt level is 12 ppb (elevated). You are asked about optimal imaging."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
For metal-on-metal hip surveillance with elevated metal ions, I would request MRI with MARS (metal artefact reduction sequences) at 1.5T (not 3T - artefact is proportional to field strength). Protocol would include: STIR for fluid collections and oedema (not chemical fat-sat which fails near metal), PD sequences for soft tissue detail, T1 for anatomy. I would look for ALTR features: pseudotumour (cystic or solid mass), fluid collections, muscle oedema/atrophy (particularly abductors), tendon damage, and bone changes. The elevated cobalt level increases concern for ALTR requiring revision.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
1.5T preferred over 3T (less metal artefact)
MARS sequences essential for MoM hips
STIR not fat-sat (field inhomogeneity)
Look for: pseudotumour, fluid, muscle damage
Elevated metal ions correlate with ALTR risk
COMMON TRAPS
✗Using 3T (more artefact)
✗Using chemical fat-sat (fails near metal)
✗Not requesting MARS sequences
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"A patient 2 years post lumbar fusion with persistent leg pain is referred for MRI. The spine surgeon wants to assess for recurrent disc herniation."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
Post-fusion spine MRI presents challenges from pedicle screw artefact, though titanium screws cause less artefact than stainless steel. I would optimise the protocol: 1.5T field strength, spin echo sequences (not gradient echo), increased receiver bandwidth, thin slices, STIR for oedema assessment. If available, MARS sequences (WARP, SEMAC) improve visualisation. For recurrent disc herniation assessment, I would focus on sagittal and axial T2-weighted images at and above the fusion level. The neural foramina and thecal sac should be assessable away from the screw heads. CT myelogram remains an alternative if MRI quality is inadequate.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Titanium screws: less artefact than stainless
1.5T, spin echo, increased bandwidth
STIR for oedema (not fat-sat)
Focus on areas away from screw heads
CT myelogram is alternative if MRI inadequate
COMMON TRAPS
✗Using gradient echo (more susceptibility artefact)
✗Not increasing bandwidth
✗Expecting perfect visualisation adjacent to screws
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"You are asked to explain why MRI around metal implants is challenging. An orthopaedic trainee asks what material causes the least artefact."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
Metal artefact occurs because metals have different magnetic susceptibility than surrounding tissue, causing local magnetic field distortion. This results in: signal void from the metal itself (no mobile protons), geometric distortion from frequency mismapping, and pile-up artefact from signal misregistration. Regarding materials, magnetic susceptibility determines artefact severity: titanium alloys cause the least artefact (low susceptibility), cobalt-chrome causes moderate-high artefact, and stainless steel causes severe artefact (high susceptibility). Tantalum and oxinium also have low susceptibility. PEEK (polymer) causes no artefact. When post-operative MRI is anticipated, choosing titanium implants improves subsequent imaging quality.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Susceptibility difference causes field distortion
Signal void: no protons in metal
Geometric distortion: frequency mismapping
Titanium: least artefact (low susceptibility)
Stainless steel: most artefact (high susceptibility)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Not explaining susceptibility physics
✗Confusing material properties
✗Not mentioning practical implant choice implications

MARS MRI Quick Reference

High-Yield Exam Summary

Material Artefact Severity

  • •Titanium: Least artefact
  • •Tantalum/Oxinium: Low artefact
  • •Cobalt-chrome: Moderate-high
  • •Stainless steel: Severe (10x titanium)

Protocol Optimisation

  • •1.5T over 3T (artefact proportional to B0)
  • •Spin echo over gradient echo
  • •Increase receiver bandwidth
  • •STIR not chemical fat-sat
  • •Thin slices, high matrix

MARS Techniques

  • •VAT: In-plane correction
  • •SEMAC: Through-plane encoding
  • •MAVRIC: Multi-frequency acquisition
  • •WARP: Siemens combined technique

Clinical Applications

  • •MoM hip ALTR surveillance
  • •Post-fusion spine assessment
  • •Periprosthetic soft tissue
  • •PJI soft tissue extent
Quick Stats
Reading Time35 min
Related Topics

MRI Imaging Principles

MRI Safety: Contraindications & Implants

MRI Cartilage Assessment Techniques

MRI Neurography: Peripheral Nerve Imaging