Frank G Shellock1. 1. University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. frank.shellock@gte.net
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate magnetic field interactions for 109 different biomedical implants and devices in association with exposure to a 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance (MR) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 109 implants and devices (aneurysm clips, 32; clips, fasteners, and staples, 10; coils and stents, 10; heart valve prostheses and annuloplasty rings, 12; orthopedic implants, five; suture materials, 13; vascular access ports and accessories, 13; miscellaneous implants and devices, 14) were tested for magnetic field interactions at 3.0-Tesla using previously-described, standardized techniques to assess magnetic field translational attraction and torque. RESULTS: The deflection angles and torque measurements ranged, respectively, from 0 to 16 degrees and 0 to +2 for the aneurysm clips; 0 to 90 degrees and 0 to +4 for the clips, fasteners, and staples; 0 to 47 degrees and 0 to +4 for the coils and stents; 0 to 4 degrees and 0 to +1 for the heart valve prostheses and annuloplasty rings; 0 to 12 degrees and 0 to +2 for the orthopedic implants; 0 to 13 degrees and 0 to +2 for the suture materials; 0 to 52 degrees and 0 to +4 for the vascular access ports and accessories; and 0 to 28 degrees and 0 to +3 for the miscellaneous implants and devices. CONCLUSION: Of the 109 implants and devices assessed for magnetic field interactions at 3.0-Tesla, four (4%) are potentially unsafe based on deflection angle criteria. The implications of these results for patients undergoing MR procedures at 3.0-Tesla is discussed. Notably, these results are specific to the 3.0-Tesla MR system used for this evaluation. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate magnetic field interactions for 109 different biomedical implants and devices in association with exposure to a 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance (MR) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 109 implants and devices (aneurysm clips, 32; clips, fasteners, and staples, 10; coils and stents, 10; heart valve prostheses and annuloplasty rings, 12; orthopedic implants, five; suture materials, 13; vascular access ports and accessories, 13; miscellaneous implants and devices, 14) were tested for magnetic field interactions at 3.0-Tesla using previously-described, standardized techniques to assess magnetic field translational attraction and torque. RESULTS: The deflection angles and torque measurements ranged, respectively, from 0 to 16 degrees and 0 to +2 for the aneurysm clips; 0 to 90 degrees and 0 to +4 for the clips, fasteners, and staples; 0 to 47 degrees and 0 to +4 for the coils and stents; 0 to 4 degrees and 0 to +1 for the heart valve prostheses and annuloplasty rings; 0 to 12 degrees and 0 to +2 for the orthopedic implants; 0 to 13 degrees and 0 to +2 for the suture materials; 0 to 52 degrees and 0 to +4 for the vascular access ports and accessories; and 0 to 28 degrees and 0 to +3 for the miscellaneous implants and devices. CONCLUSION: Of the 109 implants and devices assessed for magnetic field interactions at 3.0-Tesla, four (4%) are potentially unsafe based on deflection angle criteria. The implications of these results for patients undergoing MR procedures at 3.0-Tesla is discussed. Notably, these results are specific to the 3.0-Tesla MR system used for this evaluation. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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: David X Feng; Joseph P McCauley; Fea K Morgan-Curtis; Redoan A Salam; David R Pennell; Mary E Loveless; Adrienne N Dula Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 3.039