4.5 Article

MRI-induced deep tissue burn presenting to the emergency department

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.05.048

关键词

MRI; Burn; Emergency medicine; Complication; Deep-tissue; Pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As physicians aim to reduce ionizing radiation by utilizing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), it is important to be aware of the specific risks associated with MRI, such as thermal burns. Obese patients are particularly susceptible to MRI-related thermal burns, as demonstrated by a case of a 45-year-old female who experienced a delayed, occult full-thickness burn after a diagnostic MRI. Emergency physicians should be knowledgeable about the risks of MRI and able to properly counsel patients before and after the procedure.
As physicians attempt to Choose Wisely and decrease ionizing radiation, the use ofMagnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has increased. While MRI does not expose patients to ionizing radiation, it does expose patients to specific risks, such as thermal burns. Unfortunately, obese patients are at the highest risk for MRI-related thermal burns. A 45-year-old female with history of gastric bypass underwent diagnosticMRI of her left shoulder and required sedation due to severe anxiety. On awakening, she noted pain proximal to her right elbow that was treated conservatively. The patient presented to our emergency department a week later with an occult, MRI-related, full-thickness burn. CT scan revealed subcutaneous tissue stranding extending beyond the overlying blister. The burn required debridement twice at the nearest burn center and healed slowly thereafter. Emergency physicians should be aware of the risks of MRI so they can counsel patients prior to diagnostic MRI and adequately evaluate patients with complaints after MRI. Furthermore, patients with MRI-related burns may rarely present with delayed, occult deep-tissue involvement requiring burn center evaluation and treatment. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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