Default.asp?T_MRI_DOC_LISTPage=5&LSub=38
 mri_brain_scan
 Default.asp
 GenPg.asp?pgname=Disclaimer
 TheList_search.asp
 SafetyInfog.asp
 GenPg.asp?pgname=ScreeningForm
 GenPg.asp?pgname=ProductTesting
 GenPg.asp?pgname=OrderingBooks
 GenPg.asp?pgname=Lectures
 GenPg.asp?pgname=AboutDrShellock
 PriorityEmail.asp
 
 mri_brain_scan
 

                                            Safety Information Article
                      Information on this page is limited by the terms of our Disclaimer.  Please Read!

      Miscellaneous Implants and Devices 

Many miscellaneous implants, materials, devices, and objects have been tested with regard to MR procedures and the MR environment. For example, various types of firearms have been evaluated in the MR environment. These firearms exhibited strong ferromagnetism. In fact, two of the six firearms that underwent testing discharged in a reproducible manner while in the MR system room. Obviously, firearms should remain outside of the MR environment to prevent problems or possible injuries.

MR-guided biopsy, therapeutic, and minimally invasive surgical procedures are important clinical applications that are performed on conventional, open-architecture, or “double-donut” MR systems specially designed for this work. These procedures present challenges for the instruments and devices that are needed to support these interventions. Metallic surgical instruments and other devices potentially pose hazards (e.g., “missile” effects) or other problems (i.e. image artifacts and distortion that can obscure the area of interest) that must be addressed to apply MR-guided techniques effectively. Various manufacturers have used “weakly” ferromagnetic, nonferromagnetic or nonmetallic materials to make special instruments for interventional MR procedures.

Other medical products and devices have been developed with metallic components that are either entirely nonferromagnetic and nonconducting or made from metals that have a low magnetic susceptibility (e.g., titanium, non-magnetic types of stainless steel, etc.) that are acceptable for use in the MR environment.

MRI at 3-Tesla and Miscellaneous Implants and Devices. Many implants and devices have been tested in association with 3-Tesla MR systems. Refer to The List to determine information about specific miscellaneous implants and devices assessed at 3-Tesla.

REFERENCES

Audet-Griffin A, Pakbaz S, Shellock FG. Evaluation of MRI issues for a new, liquid embolic device. Journal of Interventional Neuroradiology 2014;6:624-9.

Dula AN, Virostko J, Shellock FG. Assessment of MRI issues at 7-Tesla for 28 implants and other objects. Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:401-405.

Go KG, et al. Interaction of metallic neurosurgical implants with magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5-Tesla as a cause of image distortion and of hazardous movement of the implant. Clin Neurosurg 1989;91:109-115.

Kanal E, Shaibani A. Firearm safety in the MR imaging environment. Radiology 1994;193:875-876.

Lufkin R, Jordan S, Lylyck P, et al. MR imaging with topographic EEG electrodes in place. Am J Neuroradiol 1988;9:953-954.

Planert J, et al. Measurements of magnetism-forces and torque moments affecting medical instruments, implants, and foreign objects during magnetic resonance imaging at all degrees of freedom. Med Physics 1996;23:851-856.

Sammet, CL, Yang X, Wassenaar P, Bourekas EC, Yuh BA, Shellock FG, Sammet S, Knopp MV. MRI heating assessment of passive, extracranial neurosurgical implants at 7-Tesla. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2013;31:1029-34.

Shellock FG. Biomedical implants and devices: Assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system. J Magn Reson Imag 2002;16:721-732.

Shellock FG. MR-compatibility of an endoscope designed for use in interventional MR procedures. Am J Roentgenol 1998;71:1297-1300.

Shellock FG. Magnetic Resonance Procedures: Health Effects and Safety. CRC Press, LLC, Boca Raton, FL, 2001.

Shellock FG. MR safety update 2002: Implants and devices. J Magn Reson Imag 2002;16:485-496.

Shellock FG. Metallic neurosurgical implants: Assessment of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5-Tesla. Radiology 2001;218:611.

Shellock FG. Surgical instruments for interventional MRI procedures: Assessment of MR safety. J Magn Reson Imag 2001;13:152-157.

Shellock FG, Audet-Griffin A. Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging issues for a wirelessly-powered lead used for epidural, spinal cord stimulation. Neuromodulation 2014;17:334-339.

Shellock FG, Shellock VJ. Ceramic surgical instruments: Evaluation of MR-compatibility at 1.5-Tesla. J Magn Reson Imag 1996;6:954-956.

Shellock FG, Shellock VJ. Evaluation of MR compatibility of 38 bioimplants and devices. Radiology 1995;197:174.

Titterington B, Shellock FG. A new vascular coupling device: Assessment of MRI issues at 3-Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging 2014;32:585-9.

Zhang J, et al. Temperature changes in nickel-chromium intracranial depth electrodes during MR scanning. Am J Neuroradiol 1993;14:497-500.



_____________________________________________________________________________________
  (c) 2017 by Shellock R & D Services, Inc. and Frank G. Shellock, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved. All copyrights and pertinent trademarks are owned by Shellock R & D Services, Inc. and Frank G. Shellock, Ph.D. No part of the MRISAFETY.COM web site may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, physical, electronic or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Shellock R & D Services, Inc. or Frank G. Shellock, Ph. D. Request for permission to reproduce any information contained on the MRISAFETY.COM web site should be addressed to: frank.shellock@gte.net
Be sure to read our Disclaimer.