PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 5, 2025Magnetic Resonance in Medicine3 citationsOpen Access

MR‐ARFI to evaluate intensity variability and enhance targeting of FUS: A brain study in rats

View Full Paper
AEAbubakr EldirdiriLCLinda ChangDMDavid Martin

Key Points

  • ARFI displacement was a strong predictor of FUS power, with a correlation of r² = 0.935, highlighting its importance in neuromodulation.
  • Initial MR-guided targeting adjustments were needed in 21% of cases, indicating variability in targeting accuracy during procedures.
  • Intra-site and intra-subject variations in ARFI displacement were 9.0% and 18.6%, while across animals, it reached 43.4%, emphasizing the need for consistency.
  • The study demonstrates that MR‐ARFI can improve FUS targeting precision and help manage the risks of acoustic pressure variability.

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Inconsistencies in focused ultrasound (FUS) transducer positioning and skull‐induced aberrations can reduce the targeting accuracy and cause inconsistencies in the intensity delivered during FUS neuromodulation procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the use of MR‐acoustic radiation force imaging (MR‐ARFI) in improving the targeting accuracy and assessing the variation in the pressure delivered during FUS procedures. Methods An MR‐guided FUS system was used to bilaterally target the nucleus accumbens region of Sprague–Dawley rats. Displacement maps were acquired with MR‐ARFI to refine the targeting accuracy by adjusting the focal point position electronically and mechanically as necessary. In addition, the ARFI measurements were used to establish the relationship between the displacement and input power, and to assess intra‐ and inter‐subject variability in FUS pressure. Results ARFI displacement was a strong predictor of FUS power ( r 2 = 0.935, p < 0.001), with displacements showing quadratic dependence on FUS pressure. Intra‐site and intra‐subject coefficients of variation in ARFI displacement measurements were 9.0% and 18.6%, whereas the variation across animals was 43.4%. Initial MR‐guided targeting required secondary adjustments in 21% of cases. Conclusion Despite initial MRI guidance, substantial targeting errors were observed, highlighting the need for advanced imaging techniques like MR‐ARFI in neuromodulation procedures. Moreover, ARFI displacements in the target region across subjects varied over three‐fold, indicating very high variation in the delivered acoustic pressure. By improving the precision of FUS targeting and estimating deviations in the FUS pressure, MR‐ARFI can improve therapeutic outcomes and reduce risks in transcranial FUS neuromodulation.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Eldirdiri et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68bb5f266d6d5674bcd02fc8https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.70039
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Low-intensity focused ultrasound to the posterior insula reduces temporal summation of pain2024 · 29 citations
  2. 2Electric field depth–focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: Simulation comparison of 50 coil designs2012 · 1,113 citations
  3. 3Risks of common complications in deep brain stimulation surgery: management and avoidance2013 · 456 citations
  4. 4The relevance of skull density ratio in selecting candidates for transcranial MR-guided focused ultrasound2019 · 112 citations
  5. 5Transcranial phase aberration correction using beam simulations and MR‐ARFI2014 · 42 citations