Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Subjective perception of safety in healthy individuals working with 7 T MRI scanners: a retrospective multicenter survey

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To retrospectively assess perception of safety of healthy individuals working with human 7 Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners.

Materials and methods

A total of 66 healthy individuals with a mean age of 31 ± 7 years participated in this retrospective multicentre survey study. Nonparametric correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the relation between self-reported perception of safety and prevalence of sensory effects while working with 7 T MRI scanners for an average 47 months.

Results

The results indicated that 98.5 % of the study participants had a neutral or positive feeling about safety aspects at 7 T MRI scanners. 45.5 % reported that they feel very safe and none of the participants stated that they feel moderately or very unsafe while working with 7 T MRI scanners. Perception of safety was not affected by the number of hours per week spent in the vicinity of the 7 T MRI scanner or the duration of experience with 7 T MRI. More than 50 % of individuals experienced vertigo and metallic taste while working with 7 T MRI scanners. However, participants’ perceptions of safety were not affected by the prevalence of MR-related symptoms.

Conclusions

The overall data indicated an average perception of a moderately safe work environment. To our knowledge, this study delineates the first attempt to assess the subjective safety perception among 7 T MRI workers and suggests further investigations are indicated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

UHF MRI:

Ultra-high field magnetic resonance imaging

SMF:

Static magnetic field

GMF:

Gradient magnetic field

RF:

Radiofrequency field

EMF:

Electromagnetic field

References

  1. Hartwig V, Giovannetti G, Vanello N, Lombardi M, Landini L, Simi S (2009) Biological effects and safety in magnetic resonance imaging: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6:1778–1798

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Theysohn JM, Maderwald S, Kraff O, Moenninghoff C, Ladd M, Ladd S (2008) Subjective acceptance of 7 Tesla MRI for human imaging. Magn Reson Mater Phy 21:63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van Osch MJ, Webb AG (2014) Safety of ultra-high field MRI: what are the specific risks? Curr Radiol Rep 2(8):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  4. Heilmaier C, Theysohn JM, Maderwald S, Kraff O, Ladd Mark E, Ladd S (2011) A large-scale study on subjective perception of discomfort during 7 and 1.5 T MRI examinations. Bioelectromagnetics 32:610–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Theysohn JM, Kraff O, Eilers K et al (2014) Vestibular effects of a 7 tesla MRI examination compared to 1.5 T and 0 T in healthy volunteers. PLoS ONE 9:3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Balchandani P, Naidich TP (2014) Ultra-high-field MR neuroimaging. Am J Neuroradiol. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4180

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Regatte RR, Schweitzer ME (2007) Ultra-high-field MRI of the musculoskeletal system at 7.0 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 25(2):262–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duyn JH (2012) The future of ultra-high field MRI and fMRI for study of the human brain. Neuroimage 62(2):1241–1248

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lupo JM, Li Y, Hess CP, Nelson SJ (2011) Advances in ultra-high field MRI for the clinical management of patients with brain tumors. Curr Opin Neurol 24(6):605–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Klix S, Els A, Paul K, Graessl A, Oezerdem C, Weinberger O et al (2015) On the subjective acceptance during cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at 7.0 Tesla. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 17(1):1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Arezes PM, Miguel AS (2008) Risk perception and safety behaviour: a study in an occupational environment. Saf Sci 46:900–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (2009) Guidelines on limits of exposure to static magnetic fields. Health Phys 96:504Y514

    Google Scholar 

  13. United States Food and Drug Administration (2003) Guidance for industry and FDA staff: criteria for significant risk investigations of magnetic resonance diagnostic devices. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072686.htm. Accessed 10 June 2015

  14. Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 29 April 2004 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) EU, European Union 2004 (18th individual directive within the meaning of the Article 16 (1) of the Directive 89/39/EEC)

  15. International Electrical commission (2008) Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. Medical equipment, Part 2-33:IEC 60601-2-33

  16. Vijayalaxmi Fatahi M, Speck O (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a review of genetic damage investigations. Mutat Res 764:51–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (2010) ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Health Phys 99:818Y836

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rauschenberg J, Nagel AM, Ladd SC et al (2014) Multicenter study of subjective acceptance during magnetic resonance imaging at 7 and 9.4 T. Invest Radiol 49:249–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Versluis MJ, Teeuwisse WM, Kan HE et al (2013) Subject tolerance of 7 T MRI examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:722–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schaap K, Christopher-de Vries Y, Mason CK et al (2014) Occupational exposure of healthcare and research staff to static magnetic stray fields from 1.5–7 Tesla MRI scanners is associated with reporting of transient symptoms. Occup Environ Med 71:423–429

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. van Dongen D, Smid T, Timmermans DRM (2011) Perception of health risks of electromagnetic fields by MRI radiographers and airport security officers compared to the general Dutch working population: a cross sectional analysis. Environ Health. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-10-95

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Grossmeier J, Mangen DJ, Terry PE, Haglund-Howieson L (2015) Health risk change as a predictor of productivity change. J Occup Environ Med 57:347–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goldberg S (2007) MRIs and the perception of risk. Am J Law Med 33(2–3):229–237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Seth Ayim Gyekye (2005) Workers’ perceptions of workplace safety and job satisfaction. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 11(3):291–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. O’Toole Michael (2002) The relationship between employees’ perceptions of safety and organizational culture. J Saf Res 33(2):231–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kangarlu A, Burgess RE, Zhu H et al (1999) Cognitive, cardiac, and physiological safety studies in ultra-high field magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 17:1407–1416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Karpowicz J, Gryz K (2006) Health risk assessment of occupational exposure to a magnetic field from magnetic resonance imaging devices. Int J Occup Saf Ergo 12:155–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hansson Mild K, Hand J, Hietanen M et al (2013) Exposure classification of MRI workers in epidemiological studies. Bioelectromagnetics 34:81–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Flin R, Mearns K, Gordon R, Fleming M (1996) Risk perception by offshore workers on UK oil and gas platforms. Saf Sci 22:131–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Williams S, Shiaw WT (1999) Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: the effects of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions. J Psychol 133:656–668

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Koradecka D, Pośniak M, Widerszal-Bazyl M, Augustyńska D, Radkiewicz R (2010) A comparative study of objective and subjective, assessment of occupational risk. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 16(1):3–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Griffin MA, Neal A (2000) Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J Occup Health Psychcol 5:347–358

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Thormann M, Amthauer H, Adolf D et al (2013) Efficacy of diphenhydramine in the prevention of vertigo and nausea at 7 T MRI. Eur J Radiol 82:768–772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Friebe B, Wollrab A, Thormann M, Fischbach K, Ricke J, Grueschow M et al (2015) Sensory perceptions of individuals exposed to the static field of a 7T MRI: A controlled blinded study. J Magn Reson Imaging 41(6):1675–1681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McRobbie DW (2012) Occupational exposure in MRI. Br J Radiol 85:293–312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Antunes A, Glover PM, Li Y, Mian O, Day BL (2012) Magnetic field effects on the vestibular system: calculation of the pressure on the cupula due to ionic current-induced Lorentz force. Phys Med Biol 57:4477–4487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mian OS, Li Y, Antunes A et al (2013) On the vertigo due to static magnetic fields. PLoS ONE 8:e78748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Schaap K, Christopher-De Vries Y, Slottje P, Kromhout H (2013) Inventory of MRI applications and workers exposed to MRI-related electromagnetic fields in the Netherlands. Eur J Radiol 82:2279–2285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Initial Training Network, HiMR, funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (FP7-PEOPLE-2012-ITN-316716). We are grateful to all 7T MRI employees who voluntarily participated in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, H65-ZENIT, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Leipziger Street 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany

    Mahsa Fatahi & Oliver Speck

  2. Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg, Germany

    Liliana Ramona Demenescu & Oliver Speck

  3. Clinical Affective Neuroimaging Laboratory, Magdeburg, Germany

    Liliana Ramona Demenescu

  4. Department of Neurology, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany

    Liliana Ramona Demenescu

  5. German Center for Neurodegenerative Disease (DZNE), Magdeburg, Germany

    Oliver Speck

  6. Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences, Magdeburg, Germany

    Oliver Speck

Authors
  1. Mahsa Fatahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liliana Ramona Demenescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oliver Speck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahsa Fatahi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 873 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fatahi, M., Demenescu, L.R. & Speck, O. Subjective perception of safety in healthy individuals working with 7 T MRI scanners: a retrospective multicenter survey. Magn Reson Mater Phy 29, 379–387 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0527-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0527-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation