Literature DB >> 29513262

Should patients with brain implants undergo MRI?

Johannes B Erhardt1, Erwin Fuhrer, Oliver G Gruschke, Jochen Leupold, Matthias C Wapler, Jürgen Hennig, Thomas Stieglitz, Jan G Korvink.   

Abstract

Patients suffering from neuronal degenerative diseases are increasingly being equipped with neural implants to treat symptoms or restore functions and increase their quality of life. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) would be the modality of choice for the diagnosis and compulsory postoperative monitoring of such patients. However, interactions between the magnetic resonance (MR) environment and implants pose severe health risks to the patient. Nevertheless, neural implant recipients regularly undergo MRI examinations, and adverse events are rarely reported. However, this should not imply that the procedures are safe. More than 300 000 cochlear implant recipients are excluded from MRI, unless the indication outweighs the excruciating pain. For 75 000 deep brain stimulation (DBS) recipients quite the opposite holds true: MRI is considered an essential part of the implantation procedure and some medical centres deliberately exceed safety regulations, which they refer to as crucially impractical. Permanent MRI-related neurological dysfunctions in DBS recipients have occurred in the past when manufacturer recommendations were exceeded. Within the last few decades, extensive effort has been invested to identify, characterise and quantify the occurring interactions. Yet today we are still far from a satisfying solution concerning a safe and beneficial MR procedure for all implant recipients. To contribute, we intend to raise awareness of the growing concern, summon the community to stop absurdities and instead improve the situation for the increasing number of patients. Therefore, we review implant safety in the MRI literature from an engineering point of view, with a focus on cochlear and DBS implants as success stories of neural implants in clinical practice. We briefly explain fundamental phenomena which can lead to patient harm, and point out breakthroughs and errors made. Then, we end with conclusions and strategies to avoid future implants from being contraindicated in MR examinations. We believe that implant recipients should enter MRI, but before doing so, it should be made sure that the procedure is reasonable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29513262     DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/aab4e4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neural Eng        ISSN: 1741-2552            Impact factor:   5.379


  19 in total

1.  It's the little things: On the complexity of planar electrode heating in MRI.

Authors:  Johannes B Erhardt; Thomas Lottner; Jessica Martinez; Ali C Özen; Martin Schuettler; Thomas Stieglitz; Daniel B Ennis; Michael Bock
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Comparison of bandaging techniques to prevent cochlear implant magnet displacement following MRI.

Authors:  Martin Leinung; Andreas G Loth; Michaela Kroth; Iris Burck; Timo Stöver; Silke Helbig
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 3.  Improving Safety of MRI in Patients with Deep Brain Stimulation Devices.

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

4.  A simple geometric analysis method for measuring and mitigating RF induced currents on Deep Brain Stimulation leads by multichannel transmission/reception.

Authors:  Yigitcan Eryaman; Naoharu Kobayashi; Sean Moen; Joshua Aman; Andrea Grant; J Thomas Vaughan; Gregory Molnar; Michael C Park; Jerrold Vitek; Gregor Adriany; Kamil Ugurbil; Noam Harel
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Preliminary Minimum Reporting Requirements for In-Vivo Neural Interface Research: I. Implantable Neural Interfaces.

Authors:  Calvin D Eiber; Jean Delbeke; Jorge Cardoso; Martijn de Neeling; Sam E John; Chang Won Lee; Jerry Skefos; Argus Sun; Dimiter Prodanov; Zach McKinney
Journal:  IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-22

6.  A fast MR-thermometry method for quantitative assessment of temperature increase near an implanted wire.

Authors:  Marylène Delcey; Pierre Bour; Valéry Ozenne; Wadie Ben Hassen; Bruno Quesson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Integrity Assessment of a Hybrid DBS Probe that Enables Neurotransmitter Detection Simultaneously to Electrical Stimulation and Recording.

Authors:  Danesh Ashouri Vajari; Maria Vomero; Johannes B Erhardt; Ali Sadr; Juan S Ordonez; Volker A Coenen; Thomas Stieglitz
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 2.891

8.  Quantitative synchrotron X-ray tomography of the material-tissue interface in rat cortex implanted with neural probes.

Authors:  Thomas Böhm; Kevin Joseph; Matthias Kirsch; Riko Moroni; André Hilger; Markus Osenberg; Ingo Manke; Midori Johnston; Thomas Stieglitz; Ulrich G Hofmann; Carola A Haas; Simon Thiele
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  Safety of active auditory implants in magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Guy Fierens; Nina Standaert; Ronald Peeters; Christ Glorieux; Nicolas Verhaert
Journal:  J Otol       Date:  2021-01-06

10.  Modeling radiofrequency responses of realistic multi-electrode leads containing helical and straight wires.

Authors:  Mikhail Kozlov; Marc Horner; Wolfgang Kainz
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 2.310

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.