F G Shellock1, V J Shellock. 1. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 90036, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our investigation was to evaluate safety during MR imaging (i.e., magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts) for metallic stents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Different types of metallic stents were tested for magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts using a 1.5-T MR system. Magnetic field-related translational attraction and torque were assessed using previously described techniques. Heating was evaluated using an infrared thermometer to record temperatures immediately before and after performing MR imaging using a whole-body-averaged specific absorption rate of 1.3 W/kg. Artifacts were assessed by placing the stents inside a fluid-filled phantom and performing MR imaging using fast spoiled gradient-echo and T1-weighted spin-echo pulse sequences. RESULTS: For the 10 different stents evaluated, we found no magnetic field interactions. the highest temperature change was < or = +0.3 degrees C, and the artifacts involved signal voids that would not create diagnostic problems as long as the area of interest was not positioned exactly where a particular stent was located. CONCLUSION: The findings of the safety tests indicated that the 10 different metallic stents would be safe for patients undergoing MR imaging procedures using MR systems with static magnetic fields of 1.5 T or less.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our investigation was to evaluate safety during MR imaging (i.e., magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts) for metallic stents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Different types of metallic stents were tested for magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts using a 1.5-T MR system. Magnetic field-related translational attraction and torque were assessed using previously described techniques. Heating was evaluated using an infrared thermometer to record temperatures immediately before and after performing MR imaging using a whole-body-averaged specific absorption rate of 1.3 W/kg. Artifacts were assessed by placing the stents inside a fluid-filled phantom and performing MR imaging using fast spoiled gradient-echo and T1-weighted spin-echo pulse sequences. RESULTS: For the 10 different stents evaluated, we found no magnetic field interactions. the highest temperature change was < or = +0.3 degrees C, and the artifacts involved signal voids that would not create diagnostic problems as long as the area of interest was not positioned exactly where a particular stent was located. CONCLUSION: The findings of the safety tests indicated that the 10 different metallic stents would be safe for patients undergoing MR imaging procedures using MR systems with static magnetic fields of 1.5 T or less.
Authors: W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eric Larose; Julie Côté; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Bernard Noël; Gerald Barbeau; Edith Bordeleau; Santiago Miró; Bernard Brochu; Robert Delarochellière; Olivier F Bertrand Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: M Hasegawa; K Miyata; Y Abe; T Ishii; T Ishigami; K Ohtani; E Nagai; T Ohyama; Y Umekawa; S Nakabayashi Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Amish N Raval; James D Telep; Michael A Guttman; Cengizhan Ozturk; Michael Jones; Richard B Thompson; Victor J Wright; William H Schenke; Ranil DeSilva; Ronnier J Aviles; Venkatesh K Raman; Michael C Slack; Robert J Lederman Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-07-25 Impact factor: 29.690