Literature DB >> 30300364

Safety of intrauterine devices in MRI.

Simon Bussmann1,2, Roger Luechinger3, Johannes M Froehlich1,2, Constantin von Weymarn2, Carolin Reischauer2, Dow Mu Koh4, Andreas Gutzeit1,2,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The paucity of safety information on intrauterine devices (IUD) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations is clinically relevant. The aim of this study is to evaluate the MRI safety of clinically used IUDs composed of copper/gold and stainless steel at 1.5T and 3.0T.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed and compared the displacement force, torque effects, presence of imaging artifacts and heating of IUDs composed of copper/gold (western IUDs) and stainless steel (China) on 1.5 and 3.0T MRI systems.
RESULTS: Gold/Copper IUDs can show small deflection angles of 7° ± 7° in the worst-case field gradient of 40T/m (equivalent to magnetic force of 0.5 mN), while the stainless steel IUD experienced significant magnetic force and deflection (Force > 7.5 N; deflection angle 90° ± 1°). Manual rotation and suspension method show no torque effects on gold/copper IUDs but high torque effects were observed by manual rotation on the stainless steel IUD. Heating measurements showed a temperature increase (rescaled to a wbSAR of 4 W/kg) of 1.4°C at 1.5T / 3.4°C at 3.0 T (stainless steel IUD), 3.2°C at 1.5 T / 3.8°C at 3 T (copper/gold IUD), 3.3°C at 1.5 T / 4.8°C at 3 T (copper 1), 3.8°C at 1.5 T / 4.8°C at 3 T (copper 2). The visible imaging artifacts of the copper and gold IUDs at 3 T MRI reach a diameter of 4 mm ± 1 mm, while the stainless steel IUD resulted in artifacts measuring 200mm ± 10 mm when using gradient echo pulse sequences.
CONCLUSIONS: Standard IUDs (copper/gold) can be considered as conditional for MR safety at 1.5 T and 3.0 T, demonstrating at wbSAR up to 4W/kg and a magnetic field gradient of up to 40T/m with minimal imaging artifacts. The stainless steel IUD, however, induces unacceptable artifacts and is potentially harmful to patients during MRI due to high magnetic dislocation forces and torque (MR unsafe).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30300364      PMCID: PMC6177157          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204220

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  13 in total

1.  The chinese ring: a contraceptive intrauterine device.

Authors:  Taylor L MacDonald; Eugenio O Gerscovich; John P McGahan; Maria Fogata
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.153

2.  Safety evaluation of large external fixation clamps and frames in a magnetic resonance environment.

Authors:  Roger Luechinger; Peter Boesiger; John A Disegi
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.368

3.  Safety of intrauterine contraceptive devices during MR imaging.

Authors:  T Hess; B Stepanow; M V Knopp
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Family planning technical services in China.

Authors:  Shang-Chun Wu
Journal:  Front Med China       Date:  2010-08-12

5.  Potential hazards and artifacts of ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic surgical and dental materials and devices in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  P F New; B R Rosen; T J Brady; F S Buonanno; J P Kistler; C T Burt; W S Hinshaw; J H Newhouse; G M Pohost; J M Taveras
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08.

Authors:  Pisake Lumbiganon; Malinee Laopaiboon; A Metin Gülmezoglu; João Paulo Souza; Surasak Taneepanichskul; Pang Ruyan; Deepika Eranjanie Attygalle; Naveen Shrestha; Rintaro Mori; Duc Hinh Nguyen; Thi Bang Hoang; Tung Rathavy; Kang Chuyun; Kannitha Cheang; Mario Festin; Venus Udomprasertgul; Maria Julieta V Germar; Gao Yanqiu; Malabika Roy; Guillermo Carroli; Katherine Ba-Thike; Ekaterina Filatova; José Villar
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-01-11       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Changes in Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods Among U.S. Women, 2009-2012.

Authors:  Megan L Kavanaugh; Jenna Jerman; Lawrence B Finer
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 8.  The promotion of intrauterine contraception in low- and middle-income countries: a narrative review.

Authors:  John Cleland; Moazzam Ali; Lenka Benova; Marina Daniele
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 3.375

9.  Magnetic field interactions of copper-containing intrauterine devices in 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging: in vivo study.

Authors:  Vanessa Berger-Kulemann; Henrik Einspieler; Nilouparak Hachemian; Daniela Prayer; Siegfried Trattnig; Michael Weber; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 3.500

10.  Impact of pay for performance on prescribing of long-acting reversible contraception in primary care: an interrupted time series study.

Authors:  Myat E Arrowsmith; Azeem Majeed; John Tayu Lee; Sonia Saxena
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Recent advances in bioelectronics chemistry.

Authors:  Yin Fang; Lingyuan Meng; Aleksander Prominski; Erik N Schaumann; Matthew Seebald; Bozhi Tian
Journal:  Chem Soc Rev       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 54.564

2.  Case series demonstrating in vivo MR safety of stainless steel (Chinese/Ring) IUDs.

Authors:  Shailin Thomas; Nicole Hindman
Journal:  BJR Case Rep       Date:  2022-01-07

3.  Intrauterine device found in an ovarian tumor: A case report.

Authors:  Yongyu An; Chang Liu; Fan Mao; Guangzhao Yang; Guoqun Mao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 1.817

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.