J Kabil, L Belguerras, S Trattnig, C Pasquier, J Felblinger1, A Missoffe. 1. Jacques Felblinger, Ph.D, Prof., Laboratoire IADI (UL-INSERM U947), CHRU Nancy Brabois, Rue du Morvan, 54511 Vandoeuvre Cedex, France, Tel: + 33 3 83 15 49 76, E-Mail: j.felblinger@chru-nancy.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review past and present challenges and ongoing trends in numerical simulation for MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) safety evaluation of medical devices. METHODS: A wide literature review on numerical and analytical simulation on simple or complex medical devices in MRI electromagnetic fields shows the evolutions through time and a growing concern for MRI safety over the years. Major issues and achievements are described, as well as current trends and perspectives in this research field. RESULTS: Numerical simulation of medical devices is constantly evolving, supported by calculation methods now well-established. Implants with simple geometry can often be simulated in a computational human model, but one issue remaining today is the experimental validation of these human models. A great concern is to assess RF heating on implants too complex to be traditionally simulated, like pacemaker leads. Thus, ongoing researches focus on alternative hybrids methods, both numerical and experimental, with for example a transfer function method. For the static field and gradient fields, analytical models can be used for dimensioning simple implants shapes, but limited for complex geometries that cannot be studied with simplifying assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Numerical simulation is an essential tool for MRI safety testing of medical devices. The main issues remain the accuracy of simulations compared to real life and the studies of complex devices; but as the research field is constantly evolving, some promising ideas are now under investigation to take up the challenges.
OBJECTIVES: To review past and present challenges and ongoing trends in numerical simulation for MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) safety evaluation of medical devices. METHODS: A wide literature review on numerical and analytical simulation on simple or complex medical devices in MRI electromagnetic fields shows the evolutions through time and a growing concern for MRI safety over the years. Major issues and achievements are described, as well as current trends and perspectives in this research field. RESULTS: Numerical simulation of medical devices is constantly evolving, supported by calculation methods now well-established. Implants with simple geometry can often be simulated in a computational human model, but one issue remaining today is the experimental validation of these human models. A great concern is to assess RF heating on implants too complex to be traditionally simulated, like pacemaker leads. Thus, ongoing researches focus on alternative hybrids methods, both numerical and experimental, with for example a transfer function method. For the static field and gradient fields, analytical models can be used for dimensioning simple implants shapes, but limited for complex geometries that cannot be studied with simplifying assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Numerical simulation is an essential tool for MRI safety testing of medical devices. The main issues remain the accuracy of simulations compared to real life and the studies of complex devices; but as the research field is constantly evolving, some promising ideas are now under investigation to take up the challenges.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic Resonance Imaging; electromagnetic field; heating; medical device; numerical simulation; safety
Authors: Martin Busch; Wolfgang Vollmann; Thomas Bertsch; Rainer Wetzler; Axel Bornstedt; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Jörg Schnorr; Dietmar Kivelitz; Matthias Taupitz; Dietrich Grönemeyer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Oliver Kraff; Karsten H Wrede; Tobias Schoemberg; Philipp Dammann; Yacine Noureddine; Stephan Orzada; Mark E Ladd; Andreas K Bitz Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Gregory M Noetscher; Peter Serano; William A Wartman; Kyoko Fujimoto; Sergey N Makarov Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 3.240