Dawood Sayed1, Krishnan Chakravarthy2,3, Kasra Amirdelfan4, Hemant Kalia5,6, Kathleen Meacham7, Prasad Shirvalkar8,9, Steven Falowski10, Erika Petersen11, Jonathan M Hagedorn12, Jason Pope13, John Leever14, Timothy Deer15,16. 1. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. 2. University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. VA San Diego Healthcare, San Diego, CA, USA. 4. Director of Medical Research, IPM Medical Group, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA, USA. 5. Rochester Regional Health System, Rochester, NY, USA. 6. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Rochester, NY, USA. 7. Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 8. Anesthesiology (Pain Management) and Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 9. Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 10. Director of Functional Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA. 11. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 12. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 13. Evolve Restorative Center, Santa Rosa, CA, USA. 14. Radiology and Neurology and Neuroradiology Fellowship Program Director, Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. 15. The Spine and Nerve Center of The Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA. 16. Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, WVU School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The evolution of neuromodulation devices in order to enter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners has been one of understanding limitations, engineering modifications, and the development of a consensus within the community in which the FDA could safely administer labeling for the devices. In the initial decades of neuromodulation, it has been contraindicated for MRI use with implanted devices. In this review, we take a comprehensive approach to address all the major products currently on the market in order to provide physicians with the ability to determine when an MRI can be performed for each type of device implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have prepared a narrative review of MRI guidelines for currently marketed implanted neuromodulation devices including spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal drug delivery systems, peripheral nerve stimulators, deep brain stimulators, vagal nerve stimulators, and sacral nerve stimulators. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, as well as manufacturer-provided information. RESULTS: Guidelines and recommendations for each device and their respective guidelines for use in and around MR environments are presented. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive guideline with regards to various devices in the market and MRI compatibility from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.
OBJECTIVES: The evolution of neuromodulation devices in order to enter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners has been one of understanding limitations, engineering modifications, and the development of a consensus within the community in which the FDA could safely administer labeling for the devices. In the initial decades of neuromodulation, it has been contraindicated for MRI use with implanted devices. In this review, we take a comprehensive approach to address all the major products currently on the market in order to provide physicians with the ability to determine when an MRI can be performed for each type of device implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have prepared a narrative review of MRI guidelines for currently marketed implanted neuromodulation devices including spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal drug delivery systems, peripheral nerve stimulators, deep brain stimulators, vagal nerve stimulators, and sacral nerve stimulators. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, as well as manufacturer-provided information. RESULTS: Guidelines and recommendations for each device and their respective guidelines for use in and around MR environments are presented. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive guideline with regards to various devices in the market and MRI compatibility from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.
Authors: Marco Reining; Dirk Winkler; Joachim Böttcher; Jürgen Meixensberger; Michael Kretzschmar Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 8.251
Authors: Mansoor M Aman; Ammar Mahmoud; Timothy Deer; Dawood Sayed; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Shane E Brogan; Vinita Singh; Amitabh Gulati; Natalie Strand; Jacqueline Weisbein; Johnathan H Goree; Fangfang Xing; Ali Valimahomed; Daniel J Pak; Antonios El Helou; Priyanka Ghosh; Krishna Shah; Vishal Patel; Alexander Escobar; Keith Schmidt; Jay Shah; Vishal Varshney; William Rosenberg; Sanjeet Narang Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Lisa Goudman; Philippe Rigoard; Maxime Billot; Rui V Duarte; Sam Eldabe; Maarten Moens Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 2.832
Authors: Jonathan M Hagedorn; Thomas P Pittelkow; Christine L Hunt; Ryan S D'Souza; Tim J Lamer Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Natalie Strand; Ryan S D'Souza; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Scott Pritzlaff; Dawood Sayed; Nomen Azeem; Alaa Abd-Elsayed; Alexander Escobar; Mark A Huntoon; Christopher M Lam; Timothy R Deer Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 2.832
Authors: Marco Reining; Dirk Winkler; Joachim Böttcher; Jürgen Meixensberger; Michael Kretzschmar Journal: Schmerz Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 1.629