O Kraff1, H H Quick2,3. 1. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for MR Imaging, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Kokereiallee 7, 45141, Essen, Deutschland. oliver.kraff@uni-due.de. 2. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for MR Imaging, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Kokereiallee 7, 45141, Essen, Deutschland. 3. Hochfeld- und Hybride MR-Bildgebung, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It can be expected that the number of 7 T MRI systems for clinical use will increase in the future. On the other hand, almost no medical implant has been labeled MR conditional for 7 T, so far, leaving the question of implant safety unanswered to the MR operator. METHODS: In principle, the same interactions between magnetizable and electric conductive material apply at 7 T as known at lower magnetic field strengths. However, there are a few important differences that need to be taken into account to perform a profound risk-benefit analysis. After a more general introduction of technical differences between 3 and 7 T systems, the article will focus mainly on safety assessments with regard to interactions between implant and radiofrequency (RF) transmit fields. In addition, strategies to ensure access at 7 T will be discussed. RESULTS OF PRACTICAL RELEVANCE: Besides hazards due to the magnetic force which can be up to 2.3 times stronger at 7 T compared to 3 T, increased risks of RF-induced tissue heating are the most critical aspects. The resonant-length of an implant at 7 T is about 5 cm. Other than at 3 T, MR systems at 7 T are less standardized. Especially with regard to the RF transmit coil and transmission methods used, substantial differences need to be expected. Hence, it is important to critically question published safety assessments of implants and to have a thorough discussion about how this relates to the individual exposure scenario. For nonmagnetic implants without a dedicated 7 T safety evaluation, but which are 3 T MR conditional and have a certain minimum distance to the RF transmit coil, a consensus recommendation from the national network German Ultrahigh Field Imaging (GUFI) may be helpful.
BACKGROUND: It can be expected that the number of 7 T MRI systems for clinical use will increase in the future. On the other hand, almost no medical implant has been labeled MR conditional for 7 T, so far, leaving the question of implant safety unanswered to the MR operator. METHODS: In principle, the same interactions between magnetizable and electric conductive material apply at 7 T as known at lower magnetic field strengths. However, there are a few important differences that need to be taken into account to perform a profound risk-benefit analysis. After a more general introduction of technical differences between 3 and 7 T systems, the article will focus mainly on safety assessments with regard to interactions between implant and radiofrequency (RF) transmit fields. In addition, strategies to ensure access at 7 T will be discussed. RESULTS OF PRACTICAL RELEVANCE: Besides hazards due to the magnetic force which can be up to 2.3 times stronger at 7 T compared to 3 T, increased risks of RF-induced tissue heating are the most critical aspects. The resonant-length of an implant at 7 T is about 5 cm. Other than at 3 T, MR systems at 7 T are less standardized. Especially with regard to the RF transmit coil and transmission methods used, substantial differences need to be expected. Hence, it is important to critically question published safety assessments of implants and to have a thorough discussion about how this relates to the individual exposure scenario. For nonmagnetic implants without a dedicated 7 T safety evaluation, but which are 3 T MR conditional and have a certain minimum distance to the RF transmit coil, a consensus recommendation from the national network German Ultrahigh Field Imaging (GUFI) may be helpful.
Keywords:
Implant lengths; Magnetic field coils; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radiofrequency; Risks
Authors: Yacine Noureddine; Andreas K Bitz; Mark E Ladd; Markus Thürling; Susanne C Ladd; Gregor Schaefers; Oliver Kraff Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 2.310
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: 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