Literature DB >> 16835741

Behavior of metal implants used in ENT surgery in 7 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

Ariane Thelen1, Hans-Christian Bauknecht, Patrick Asbach, Thomas Schrom.   

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become increasingly important as an imaging technique in cross-sectional imaging of head and neck diseases. To investigate whether MRI examinations can be performed without risk in patients with metal implants even at higher field strengths, we examined different materials in 7 Tesla MRI. Implants near sensory organs like the middle ear or eye are of particular interest here. Using the 7 Tesla research MRI for small animals, we tested implants made of various metals like titanium, gold, gold/platinum, platinum/iridium, gold-plated silver, PTFE and stainless steel for heating, translocation and rotation according to a standardized protocol. A fiber optic temperature probe measured the heating of the implant before, during and after MRI scanning. None of the implants showed significant heating. The gold-plated stainless steel ventilation tube was the only implant to markedly change its position already in the Petri dish. Of the remaining implants, a trachea support ring, a nose dilatator and the wire from the ventilation tubes moved during vibration of the Petri dish. With exception of two implants, all implants changed positions in the water bath. In the swim test, the gold implants showed the least movement of all the implants. In this study, the properties of the non-ferromagnetic implant materials differed in the 7 Tesla MRI. Stainless steel ventilation tubes, the trachea support ring and the nose dilatator were not suited for the 7 Tesla MRI system, because they changed their position during MRI. In the case of ventilation tubes with a steel wire, the wire should be removed before MRI to prevent injury to the external auditory canal. There was a tendency for the pure gold implants to move less in the 7 Tesla MRI than all other tested materials. General statements cannot be made about the MRI suitability of different implants. Every implant should be individually examined to confirm its definitive MRI compatibility. Particularly, middle ear implants warrant special attention here due to their closeness to the oval window.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16835741     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-006-0082-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  14 in total

1.  Microimaging at 14 tesla using GESEPI for removal of magnetic susceptibility artifacts in T(2)(*)-weighted image contrast.

Authors:  Q X Yang; M B Smith; R W Briggs; R E Rycyna
Journal:  J Magn Reson       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.229

2.  Middle ear prosthesis displacement in high-strength magnetic fields.

Authors:  M D Williams; P J Antonelli; L S Williams; J E Moorhead
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging of stapes prostheses.

Authors:  A J Syms; G W Petermann
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  2000-07

4.  [Systematics of imaging artifacts in MRT caused by metallic vascular implants (stents)].

Authors:  H Graf; T Klemm; U A Lauer; S Duda; C D Claussen; F Schick
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2003-12

5.  Further studies on the effects of magnetic resonance imaging fields on middle ear implants.

Authors:  E L Applebaum; G E Valvassori
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 1.547

Review 6.  MR imaging and biomedical implants, materials, and devices: an updated review.

Authors:  F G Shellock; J S Curtis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  The effect of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging on metallic middle ear prostheses.

Authors:  K F Mattucci; M Setzen; R Hyman; G Chaturvedi
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 3.497

8.  [Experimental studies and theoretical considerations on the behavior of stapes metal prostheses in the magnetic field of a nuclear magnetic resonance tomograph].

Authors:  K B Hüttenbrink; W Grosse-Nobis
Journal:  Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg)       Date:  1987-03

9.  Effects of magnetic resonance imaging fields on stapedectomy prostheses.

Authors:  E L Applebaum; G E Valvassori
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol       Date:  1985-12

10.  Potential hazards and artifacts of ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic surgical and dental materials and devices in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  P F New; B R Rosen; T J Brady; F S Buonanno; J P Kistler; C T Burt; W S Hinshaw; J H Newhouse; G M Pohost; J M Taveras
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  3 in total

1.  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 2.  Gold nanoparticles: From nanomedicine to nanosensing.

Authors:  Po C Chen; Sandra C Mwakwari; Adegboyega K Oyelere
Journal:  Nanotechnol Sci Appl       Date:  2008-11-02

Review 3.  [Safety of implants in high field and ultrahigh field MRI].

Authors:  O Kraff; H H Quick
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 0.635

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.