Literature DB >> 15284433

MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care.

Frank G Shellock1, John V Crues.   

Abstract

The technology used for magnetic resonance (MR) procedures has evolved continuously during the past 20 years, yielding MR systems with stronger static magnetic fields, faster and stronger gradient magnetic fields, and more powerful radiofrequency transmission coils. Most reported cases of MR-related injuries and the few fatalities that have occurred have apparently been the result of failure to follow safety guidelines or of use of inappropriate or outdated information related to the safety aspects of biomedical implants and devices. To prevent accidents in the MR environment, therefore, it is necessary to revise information on biologic effects and safety according to changes that have occurred in MR technology and with regard to current guidelines for biomedical implants and devices. This review provides an overview of and update on MR biologic effects, discusses new or controversial MR safety topics and issues, presents evidence-based guidelines to ensure safety for patients and staff, and describes safety information for various implants and devices that have recently undergone evaluation. Copyright RSNA, 2004

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15284433     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2323030830

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  79 in total

1.  Quantification of adverse events associated with functional MRI scanning and with real-time fMRI-based training.

Authors:  Jon E Hawkinson; Amy J Ross; Sudharshan Parthasarathy; David J Scott; Ella A Laramee; Lainie J Posecion; William R Rekshan; Kristen E Sheau; Nkechi D Njaka; Peter J Bayley; R Christopher deCharms
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2012-09

2.  Was magnetic resonance imaging scan contraindicated?

Authors:  Muhammad Khizar Rafiq
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2010-03-23

3.  Basic research support for shared magnetic resonance imaging resources.

Authors:  Joni Taylor; Victoria Hampshire
Journal:  Lab Anim (NY)       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 12.625

4.  Evaluation of 39 medical implants at 7.0 T.

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

Review 5.  Cardiovascular interventional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Robert J Lederman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-11-08       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Nuclear spin noise imaging.

Authors:  Norbert Müller; Alexej Jerschow
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-04-24       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Introduction of Ultra-High-Field MR Imaging in Infants: Preparations and Feasibility.

Authors:  K V Annink; N E van der Aa; J Dudink; T Alderliesten; F Groenendaal; M Lequin; F E Jansen; K S Rhebergen; P Luijten; J Hendrikse; H J M Hoogduin; E R Huijing; E Versteeg; F Visser; A J E Raaijmakers; E C Wiegers; D W J Klomp; J P Wijnen; M J N L Benders
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 8.  Valvular heart disease: what does cardiovascular MRI add?

Authors:  Pier Giorgio Masci; Steven Dymarkowski; Jan Bogaert
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-08-29       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Agenesis of the corpus callosum in fetuses with mild ventriculomegaly: role of MR imaging.

Authors:  R Manfredi; A Tognolini; C Bruno; R Raffaelli; M Franchi; R Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Preoperative prediction of anterior cruciate ligament tibial footprint size by anthropometric variables.

Authors:  Yong-Beom Park; Chul-Won Ha; Hyung-Joo Kim; Yong-Geun Park
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.