4.7 Article

Biomedical implants and devices: Assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 721-732

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.10207

关键词

magnetic resonance, safety; magnetic resonance imaging, implants; magnetic resonance, bioeffects; magnetic resonance, high field; magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate magnetic field interactions for 109 different biomedical implants and devices in association with exposure to a 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance (MR) system. Materials and Methods: A total of 109 implants and devices (aneurysm clips, 32: clips, fasteners, and staples, 10; coils and stents, 10; heart valve prostheses and annuloplasty rings, 12; orthopedic implants, five; suture materials, 13; vascular access ports and accessories, 13; miscellaneous implants and devices, 14) were tested for magnetic field interactions at 3.0-Tesla using previously-described, standardized techniques to assess magnetic field translational attraction and torque. Results: The deflection angles and torque measurements ranged, respectively, from 0 to 16degrees and 0 to +2 for the aneurysm clips; 0 to 90degrees and 0 to +4 for the clips, fasteners, and staples; 0 to 47degrees and 0 to +4 for the coils and stents; 0 to 4degrees and 0 to + 1 for the heart valve prostheses and annuloplasty rings; 0 to 12degrees and 0 to +2 for the orthopedic implants; 0 to 13degrees and 0 to + 2 for the suture materials; 0 to 52degrees and 0 to + 4 for the vascular access ports and accessories; and 0 to 28degrees and 0 to +3 for the miscellaneous implants and devices. Conclusion: Of the 109 implants and devices assessed for magnetic field interactions at 3.0-Tesla, four (4%) are potentially unsafe based on deflection angle criteria. The implications of these results for patients undergoing MR procedures at 3.0-Tesla is discussed. Notably, these results are specific to the 3.0-Tesla MR system used for this evaluation.

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

4.7
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