David X Feng1, Joseph P McCauley1, Fea K Morgan-Curtis1, Redoan A Salam1, David R Pennell2, Mary E Loveless1, Adrienne N Dula2,3. 1. 1 School for Science and Math at Vanderbilt University, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. 2 Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. 3 Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With increased signal to noise ratios, 7.0-T MRI has the potential to contribute unique information regarding anatomy and pathophysiology of a disease. However, concerns for the safety of subjects with metallic medical implants have hindered advancement in this field. The purpose of the present research was to evaluate the MRI safety for 39 commonly used medical implants at 7.0 T. METHODS: Selected metallic implants were tested for magnetic field interactions, radiofrequency-induced heating and artefacts using standardized testing techniques. RESULTS: 5 of the 39 implants tested may be unsafe for subjects undergoing MRI at 7.0 T. CONCLUSION: Implants were deemed either "MR Conditional" or "MR Unsafe" for the 7.0-T MRI environment. Further research is needed to expand the existing database categorizing implants that are acceptable for patients referred for MRI examinations at 7.0 T. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Lack of MRI testing for common metallic medical implants limits the translational potential of 7.0-T MRI. For safety reasons, patients with metallic implants are not allowed to undergo a 7.0-T MRI scan, precluding part of the population that can benefit from the detailed resolution of ultra-high-field MRIs. This investigation provides necessary MRI testing of common medical implants at 7.0 T.
OBJECTIVE: With increased signal to noise ratios, 7.0-T MRI has the potential to contribute unique information regarding anatomy and pathophysiology of a disease. However, concerns for the safety of subjects with metallic medical implants have hindered advancement in this field. The purpose of the present research was to evaluate the MRI safety for 39 commonly used medical implants at 7.0 T. METHODS: Selected metallic implants were tested for magnetic field interactions, radiofrequency-induced heating and artefacts using standardized testing techniques. RESULTS: 5 of the 39 implants tested may be unsafe for subjects undergoing MRI at 7.0 T. CONCLUSION: Implants were deemed either "MR Conditional" or "MR Unsafe" for the 7.0-T MRI environment. Further research is needed to expand the existing database categorizing implants that are acceptable for patients referred for MRI examinations at 7.0 T. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Lack of MRI testing for common metallic medical implants limits the translational potential of 7.0-T MRI. For safety reasons, patients with metallic implants are not allowed to undergo a 7.0-T MRI scan, precluding part of the population that can benefit from the detailed resolution of ultra-high-field MRIs. This investigation provides necessary MRI testing of common medical implants at 7.0 T.
Authors: Emma C Tallantyre; Paul S Morgan; Jennifer E Dixon; Ali Al-Radaideh; Matthew J Brookes; Nikos Evangelou; Peter G Morris Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Bixia Chen; Tobias Schoemberg; Oliver Kraff; Philipp Dammann; Andreas K Bitz; Marc Schlamann; Harald H Quick; Mark E Ladd; Ulrich Sure; Karsten H Wrede Journal: MAGMA Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Alexandre Boutet; Robert Gramer; Christopher J Steele; Gavin J B Elias; Jürgen Germann; Ricardo Maciel; Walter Kucharczyk; Ludvic Zrinzo; Andres M Lozano; Alfonso Fasano Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Alexandre Boutet; Clement T Chow; Keshav Narang; Gavin J B Elias; Clemens Neudorfer; Jürgen Germann; Manish Ranjan; Aaron Loh; Alastair J Martin; Walter Kucharczyk; Christopher J Steele; Ileana Hancu; Ali R Rezai; Andres M Lozano Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John W Rutland; Stephanie Brown; Gaurav Verma; Rebecca E Feldman; Himanshu Sharma; Matthew Markowitz; Molly Schneider; Bradley N Delman; James Murrough; Priti Balchandani Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: L McCarthy; G Verma; G Hangel; A Neal; B A Moffat; J P Stockmann; O C Andronesi; P Balchandani; C G Hadjipanayis Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Giuseppe Barisano; Meng Law; Rachel M Custer; Arthur W Toga; Farshid Sepehrband Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 1.376
Authors: Giuseppe Barisano; Bozena Culo; Frank G Shellock; Farshid Sepehrband; Katherin Martin; Mary Stevens; Danny J Wang; Arthur W Toga; Meng Law Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 3.130
Authors: Giuseppe Barisano; Farshid Sepehrband; Samantha Ma; Kay Jann; Ryan Cabeen; Danny J Wang; Arthur W Toga; Meng Law Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.629