Advertisement

Safety Considerations in Interventional MRI

  • Harald Kugel
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)

Abstract

Magnetic resonance (MR) techniques are not harmful, as the electromagnetic fields used in this technique do not have permanent or harmful effects on living tissue, as long as the MR examination is performed properly. Especially with interventional imaging, the absence of ionizing radiation is an advantage not only for the patient, but even more so for the operator. However, MR imaging is not free from hazards. In the case of inadvertence, substantial damage is possible. The strong static magnetic field, the radiofrequency field, and the switched gradient fields have different physical effects and thus different risks emerge. Owing to the specific requirements for interventional procedures, the significant danger from ferromagnetic objects that are brought into the range of the static field and can be drawn towards the scanner with considerable force is even larger than in standard imaging. Depending on the specific environment, strict safety precautions, which address all potential hazards in all possible situations, must be implemented and personnel must be trained specifically for interventions at or near an MR scanner.

Keywords

Magnetic Resonance Examination Magnetic Resonance Scanner Peripheral Nerve Stimulation International Electrotechnical Commission Scanner Room 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Archibold RC (2001) Hospital details failures leading to M.R.I. fatality. New York Times, 22 Aug 2001Google Scholar
  2. ASTM International (2008) F2503-08. Standard practice for marking medical devices and other items for safety in the magnetic resonance environment. In: Annual book of ASTM standards, vol 13.02. Medical and surgical materials and devices (II): F2502-latest. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. doi: 10.1520/F2503-08
  3. ASTM International (2011) F2182-11a. Standard test method for measurement of radio frequency induced heating on or near passive implants during magnetic resonance imaging. In: Annual book of ASTM standards, vol 13.01. Medical and surgical materials and devices (I): E667-F2477. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. doi: 10.1520/F2182-11A
  4. Bourland JD, Nyenhuis JA, Schaefer DJ (1999) Physiologic effects of intense MR gradient fields. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 9:363–377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen DW (2001) Boy, 6, dies of skull injury during MRI. New York Times, 31 July 2001Google Scholar
  6. Crozier S, Wang H, Trakic A, Liu F (2007) Exposure of workers to pulsed gradients in MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:1236–1254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuentes MA, Trakic A, Wilson SJ, Crozier S (2008) Analysis and measurement of magnetic field exposures for healthcare workers in selected ME environments. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55:1355–1364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graf H, Lauer UA, Schick F (2006) Eddy-current induction in extended metallic parts as a source of considerable torsional moment. J Magn Reson Imaging 23:585–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hardy PT, Weil KM (2010) A review of thermal MR injuries. Radiol Technol 81:606–609PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hushek SG, Martin AJ, Steckner M, Bosak E, Debbins J, Kucharzyk W (2008) MR systems for MRI-guided interventions. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:253–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998) Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys 74:494–522Google Scholar
  12. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (2010) Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Health Phys 99:818–836Google Scholar
  13. International Electrotechnical Commission (2010) Medical electrical equipment––part 2-33: particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. International standard IEC 60601-2-33: International Electrotechnical Commission, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, Borgstede JP, Bradley WG Jr, Froelich JW, Gilk T, Gimbel JR, Gosbee J, Kuhni-Kaminski EM, Keeler EK, Lester JW Jr, Nyenhuis J, Parag Y, Schaefer DJ, Sebek-Scoumis EA, Weinreb J, Zaremba LA, Wilcox P, Lucey L, Sass N (2007) ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1447–1474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelly WM, Paglen PG, Pearson JA, San Diego AG, Soloman MA (1986) Ferromagnetism of intraocular foreign body cause unilateral blindness after MR study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 7:243–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Klucznik RP, Carrier DA, Pyka R, Haid RW (1993) Placement of a ferromagnetic intracerebral aneurysm clip in a magnetic field with a fatal outcome. Radiology 187:855–856PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Knopp MV, Essig M, Debus J, Zabel HJ, van Kaick G (1996) Unusual burns of the lower extremities caused by a closed conducting loop in a patient at MR imaging. Radiology 200:572–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kugel H, Bremer C, Püschel M, Fischbach R, Lenzen H, Tombach B, Van Aken H, Heindel W (2003) Hazardous situation in the MR bore: induction in EEG leads causes fire. Eur Radiol 13:690–694PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (2012). http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm. Accessed 21 Feb 2012
  20. McJury M, Shellock F (2000) Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 12:37–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schaefer DJ (1998) Safety aspects of switched gradient fields. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 6:731–748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schenck JF (2005) Physical interactions of static magnetic fields with living tissue. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 87:185–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shellock FG, Crues JV III (2002) Commentary: MR safety and the American college of radiology white paper. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:1349–1352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tope WD, Shellock FG (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging and permanent cosmetics (tattoos): survey of complications and adverse effects. J Magn Reson Imaging 15:180–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations