BACKGROUND: This study was to investigate the safety of two types of commercially available lumbar artificial discs (CHARITE and PRODISC-L) during a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedure in a 1.5-Tesla MR system, and to evaluate the size of metal artifacts on the MR image for different sequences. METHODS: A 1.5-Tesla clinical MR imaging system was used. The degree of deflection of the endplates of two artificial discs was evaluated by an angle-measurement instrument at the portals of the MRI scanner. The heating effect of the radio frequency (RF) magnetic field was evaluated by using "worst-case" imaging sequences on a human cadaver implanted with an artificial lumbar disc at the L5/S1 intervertebral disc location. The temperatures of the tissue adjacent to the implant, and of the L4/L5 intervertebral disc (used as a control) were measured, respectively, using a digital probe thermometer before and after the MRI scan sequence. A rectangular water phantom was designed to evaluate the metal artifacts of these two artificial discs under different MR imaging sequences. RESULTS: The maximal deflection angle of the endplate of the implants under a static MR field was 7.5 and 6.0 degrees, for the CHARITE and PRODISC-L, respectively. The difference between temperature rise of tissue adjacent to the two types of artificial discs and the temperature rise of the L4/L5 control location was 0.4 and 0.6 degrees C, respectively. The size of metal artifacts on images of TSE (T1/T2 -weighted), STIR and Turbo Dark Fluid sequences were relatively less than those of TSE fat saturation, Flash and SE (T1-weighted) sequences. CONCLUSIONS: The CHARITE and the PRODISC-L artificial disc do not present an additional hazard or risk to a patient undergoing an MRI procedure using a scanner operating with a static magnetic field of 1.5 T or lower. Image artifacts from the implants may present problems if the anatomical region of interest is in or near the area where these implants are located (e.g., vertebral canal at affected segment).
BACKGROUND: This study was to investigate the safety of two types of commercially available lumbar artificial discs (CHARITE and PRODISC-L) during a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedure in a 1.5-Tesla MR system, and to evaluate the size of metal artifacts on the MR image for different sequences. METHODS: A 1.5-Tesla clinical MR imaging system was used. The degree of deflection of the endplates of two artificial discs was evaluated by an angle-measurement instrument at the portals of the MRI scanner. The heating effect of the radio frequency (RF) magnetic field was evaluated by using "worst-case" imaging sequences on a human cadaver implanted with an artificial lumbar disc at the L5/S1 intervertebral disc location. The temperatures of the tissue adjacent to the implant, and of the L4/L5 intervertebral disc (used as a control) were measured, respectively, using a digital probe thermometer before and after the MRI scan sequence. A rectangular water phantom was designed to evaluate the metal artifacts of these two artificial discs under different MR imaging sequences. RESULTS: The maximal deflection angle of the endplate of the implants under a static MR field was 7.5 and 6.0 degrees, for the CHARITE and PRODISC-L, respectively. The difference between temperature rise of tissue adjacent to the two types of artificial discs and the temperature rise of the L4/L5 control location was 0.4 and 0.6 degrees C, respectively. The size of metal artifacts on images of TSE (T1/T2 -weighted), STIR and Turbo Dark Fluid sequences were relatively less than those of TSE fat saturation, Flash and SE (T1-weighted) sequences. CONCLUSIONS: The CHARITE and the PRODISC-L artificial disc do not present an additional hazard or risk to a patient undergoing an MRI procedure using a scanner operating with a static magnetic field of 1.5 T or lower. Image artifacts from the implants may present problems if the anatomical region of interest is in or near the area where these implants are located (e.g., vertebral canal at affected segment).
Authors: Nadja A Farshad-Amacker; Daniel Nanz; Arjun Thanbanbalasingam; Gustav Andreisek; Mathias Nittka; Roger Luechinger Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2018-04-17
Authors: Vadim A Byvaltsev; Andrei A Kalinin; Morgan B Giers; Valerii V Shepelev; Yurii Ya Pestryakov; Mikhail Yu Biryuchkov Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-19