M C Mabray1, A Uzelac2, J F Talbott3, S C Lin4, A D Gean5. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: Marc.mabray@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: Alina.uzelac@ucsf.edu. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: Jason.talbott@ucsf.edu. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: LinS@vision.ucsf.edu. 5. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: Alisa.Gean@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
AIM: To report on the MRI compatibility of the Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration device, a tiny metallic implant placed into the anterior chamber of the eye that is much smaller than traditional glaucoma shunts, and to educate the radiology community regarding its appearance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients with Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration devices were identified that had undergone MRI at San Francisco General Hospital/University of California San Francisco Medical Center by searching and cross-referencing the radiology reporting system and the electronic medical record. MRI images were reviewed for artefact interfering with interpretation. Ophthalmology examinations were reviewed for evidence of complications. RESULTS: Eighteen individual MRI examinations were performed during 12 unique MRI events on these 7 patients. 13/18 individual MRI examinations and 7/12 MRI events were performed at 3 T with the others performed at 1.5 T. Mean time from Ex-PRESS implantation to MRI was 17.5 months. Mean time from MRI to first ophthalmology examination was 1.1 months and from MRI to latest ophthalmology examination was 6.6 months. Susceptibility artefact did not interfere with image interpretation and no complications related to MRI were encountered. CONCLUSION: The Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration device appears to be safe for MRI at 1.5 and 3 T and does not produce significant susceptibility artefact to affect diagnostic interpretation adversely.
AIM: To report on the MRI compatibility of the Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration device, a tiny metallic implant placed into the anterior chamber of the eye that is much smaller than traditional glaucoma shunts, and to educate the radiology community regarding its appearance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients with Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration devices were identified that had undergone MRI at San Francisco General Hospital/University of California San Francisco Medical Center by searching and cross-referencing the radiology reporting system and the electronic medical record. MRI images were reviewed for artefact interfering with interpretation. Ophthalmology examinations were reviewed for evidence of complications. RESULTS: Eighteen individual MRI examinations were performed during 12 unique MRI events on these 7 patients. 13/18 individual MRI examinations and 7/12 MRI events were performed at 3 T with the others performed at 1.5 T. Mean time from Ex-PRESS implantation to MRI was 17.5 months. Mean time from MRI to first ophthalmology examination was 1.1 months and from MRI to latest ophthalmology examination was 6.6 months. Susceptibility artefact did not interfere with image interpretation and no complications related to MRI were encountered. CONCLUSION: The Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration device appears to be safe for MRI at 1.5 and 3 T and does not produce significant susceptibility artefact to affect diagnostic interpretation adversely.
Authors: Noa Geffen; Graham E Trope; Tariq Alasbali; David Salonen; Adrian P Crowley; Yvonne M Buys Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Michael V Boland; Ann-Margret Ervin; David S Friedman; Henry D Jampel; Barbara S Hawkins; Daniela Vollenweider; Yohalakshmi Chelladurai; Darcy Ward; Catalina Suarez-Cuervo; Karen A Robinson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 25.391