4.6 Article

MRI Induced Torque and Demagnetization in Retention Magnets for a Bone Conduction Implant

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 61, 期 6, 页码 1887-1893

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2014.2309978

关键词

Boneconduction implant (BCI); demagnetization; magnetic resonance (MR) safety; magnetic torque; retention magnets

资金

  1. VR, the Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Performing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations in patients who use implantable medical devices involve safety risks both for the patient and the implant. Hearing implants often use two permanent magnets, one implanted and one external, for the retention of the external transmitter coil to the implanted receiver coil to achieve an optimal signal transmission. The implanted magnet is subjected to both demagnetization and torque, magnetically induced by the MRI scanner. In this paper, demagnetization and a comparison between measured and simulated induced torque is studied for the retention magnet used in a bone conduction implant (BCI) system. The torque was measured and simulated in a uniform static magnetic field of 1.5 T. The magnetic field was generated by a dipole electromagnet and permanent magnets with two different types of coercive fields were tested. Demagnetization and maximum torque for the high coercive field magnets was 7.7% +/- 2.5% and 0.20 +/- 0.01 Nm, respectively and 71.4% +/- 19.1% and 0.18 +/- 0.01 Nm for the low coercive field magnets, respectively. The simulated maximum torque was 0.34 Nm, deviating from the measured torque in terms of amplitude, mainly related to an insufficient magnet model. The BCI implant with high coercive field magnets is believed to be magnetic resonance (MR) conditional up to 1.5 T if a compression band is used around the skull to fix the implant. This is not approved and requires further investigations, and if removal of the implant is needed, the surgical operation is expected to be simple.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据