肌肉内永磁体植入的MRI安全性考虑。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Cameron R Taylor, Eric D Anttila, Steven J Charlebois, David C Gross, Amanda F Taylor, Jose O Negron-Garcia, Christopher E Suckow, L Tiffany Lyle, Scott R Hooten, Seong Ho Yeon, Christopher C Shallal, Hugh M Herr
{"title":"肌肉内永磁体植入的MRI安全性考虑。","authors":"Cameron R Taylor, Eric D Anttila, Steven J Charlebois, David C Gross, Amanda F Taylor, Jose O Negron-Garcia, Christopher E Suckow, L Tiffany Lyle, Scott R Hooten, Seong Ho Yeon, Christopher C Shallal, Hugh M Herr","doi":"10.1002/jmri.70126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Permanent magnet implants are used with several medical and assistive devices, such as cochlear implants, dental attachments, and prosthetic control, but raise caution for MR imaging. Previous work has evaluated several magnet implants for position and magnetization stability, as well as for image artifacts under MRI. Yet, the intramuscular magnets used for prosthetic control still require evaluation for potential MRI conditionality.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the position and magnetization stability of and image artifacts from 3-mm-diameter spherical permanent magnets (B<sub>r</sub> = 1.393 T, H<sub>ci</sub> = 1.637 MA/m) implanted within muscle.</p><p><strong>Study type: </strong>Prospective longitudinal study.</p><p><strong>Animal model: </strong>Porcine; one animal, eight muscles.</p><p><strong>Field strength/sequence: </strong>0.55-T, 1.5-T/SE, GRE.</p><p><strong>Assessment: </strong>Permanent magnets and nonmagnetic controls were implanted into eight muscles and exposed to 1.5-T MRI 36 days post-implantation. All sites were examined histologically for evidence of implant migration (acute fibrotic response or fibrotic capsule disruption). Benchtop studies evaluated worst-case demagnetization and image artifacts (artifact radius minus implant radius). The primary measure of position stability was histological examination interpreting characteristics of progressive skeletal muscle healing. Secondary position stability analysis was performed via CT imaging.</p><p><strong>Statistical tests: </strong>Unpaired one-sided sign test with a significance level of 0.05. Demagnetization and imaging artifacts were summarized as maximums.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fibrotic capsules were similarly intact at permanent magnet and control sites (fibrotic capsule thicknesses: 20-550 μm [magnets], 20-220 μm [controls]). No effect of MRI exposure on implant migration was observed via secondary analysis (p = 0.965 [0.55-T], p = 0.996 [1.5-T]). Maximum demagnetization was 2.1% under 0.55-T exposure and 13.5% under 1.5-T exposure, and maximum image artifact was 71 mm at both imaging strengths.</p><p><strong>Data conclusion: </strong>The permanent magnet implants used in this study were resistant to migration and substantial demagnetization under 0.55-T and 1.5-T MRI exposure and resulted in negligible image artifacts for critical organ imaging, suggesting that the presence of these implants does not preclude a patient from receiving MR imaging up to 1.5T.</p><p><strong>Evidence level: </strong>N/A.</p><p><strong>Technical efficacy: </strong>Stage 5: Improvements in patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":16140,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"MRI Safety Considerations for Permanent Magnet Implants in Muscle.\",\"authors\":\"Cameron R Taylor, Eric D Anttila, Steven J Charlebois, David C Gross, Amanda F Taylor, Jose O Negron-Garcia, Christopher E Suckow, L Tiffany Lyle, Scott R Hooten, Seong Ho Yeon, Christopher C Shallal, Hugh M Herr\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jmri.70126\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Permanent magnet implants are used with several medical and assistive devices, such as cochlear implants, dental attachments, and prosthetic control, but raise caution for MR imaging. Previous work has evaluated several magnet implants for position and magnetization stability, as well as for image artifacts under MRI. Yet, the intramuscular magnets used for prosthetic control still require evaluation for potential MRI conditionality.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the position and magnetization stability of and image artifacts from 3-mm-diameter spherical permanent magnets (B<sub>r</sub> = 1.393 T, H<sub>ci</sub> = 1.637 MA/m) implanted within muscle.</p><p><strong>Study type: </strong>Prospective longitudinal study.</p><p><strong>Animal model: </strong>Porcine; one animal, eight muscles.</p><p><strong>Field strength/sequence: </strong>0.55-T, 1.5-T/SE, GRE.</p><p><strong>Assessment: </strong>Permanent magnets and nonmagnetic controls were implanted into eight muscles and exposed to 1.5-T MRI 36 days post-implantation. All sites were examined histologically for evidence of implant migration (acute fibrotic response or fibrotic capsule disruption). Benchtop studies evaluated worst-case demagnetization and image artifacts (artifact radius minus implant radius). The primary measure of position stability was histological examination interpreting characteristics of progressive skeletal muscle healing. Secondary position stability analysis was performed via CT imaging.</p><p><strong>Statistical tests: </strong>Unpaired one-sided sign test with a significance level of 0.05. Demagnetization and imaging artifacts were summarized as maximums.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fibrotic capsules were similarly intact at permanent magnet and control sites (fibrotic capsule thicknesses: 20-550 μm [magnets], 20-220 μm [controls]). No effect of MRI exposure on implant migration was observed via secondary analysis (p = 0.965 [0.55-T], p = 0.996 [1.5-T]). Maximum demagnetization was 2.1% under 0.55-T exposure and 13.5% under 1.5-T exposure, and maximum image artifact was 71 mm at both imaging strengths.</p><p><strong>Data conclusion: </strong>The permanent magnet implants used in this study were resistant to migration and substantial demagnetization under 0.55-T and 1.5-T MRI exposure and resulted in negligible image artifacts for critical organ imaging, suggesting that the presence of these implants does not preclude a patient from receiving MR imaging up to 1.5T.</p><p><strong>Evidence level: </strong>N/A.</p><p><strong>Technical efficacy: </strong>Stage 5: Improvements in patient care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.70126\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.70126","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:永磁植入体用于几种医疗和辅助装置,如人工耳蜗、牙齿附着体和假体控制,但需要注意磁共振成像。以前的工作已经评估了几种磁铁植入物的位置和磁化稳定性,以及MRI下的图像伪影。然而,用于假肢控制的肌内磁铁仍然需要评估潜在的MRI条件。目的:研究直径为3 mm的球形永磁体(Br = 1.393 T, Hci = 1.637 MA/m)植入肌肉后的位置、磁化稳定性和图像伪影。研究类型:前瞻性纵向研究。动物模型:猪;一只动物,八块肌肉。场强/序列:0.55-T、1.5-T/SE、GRE。评估:将永磁体和非磁性对照体植入8块肌肉,并在植入36天后进行1.5 t MRI检查。对所有部位进行组织学检查,寻找植入物迁移的证据(急性纤维化反应或纤维化囊破裂)。台式研究评估了最坏情况下的消磁和图像伪影(伪影半径减去植入物半径)。体位稳定性的主要指标是组织学检查,解释骨骼肌渐进愈合的特征。通过CT成像进行二次位置稳定性分析。统计学检验:未配对单侧符号检验,显著性水平为0.05。消磁和成像伪影被总结为最大值。结果:在永磁体和对照部位,纤维囊同样完好无损(纤维囊厚度:20-550 μm[磁铁],20-220 μm[对照组])。二次分析未发现MRI暴露对种植体迁移有影响(p = 0.965 [0.55-T], p = 0.996 [1.5-T])。在0.55 t和1.5 t下最大消磁率分别为2.1%和13.5%,两种成像强度下最大图像伪影均为71 mm。数据结论:本研究中使用的永磁植入物在0.55 t和1.5T MRI暴露下具有抵抗迁移和大量退磁的能力,并且在关键器官成像中产生可忽略不计的图像伪影,这表明这些植入物的存在并不妨碍患者接受高达1.5T的磁共振成像。证据级别:无。技术疗效:第5阶段:患者护理的改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
MRI Safety Considerations for Permanent Magnet Implants in Muscle.

Background: Permanent magnet implants are used with several medical and assistive devices, such as cochlear implants, dental attachments, and prosthetic control, but raise caution for MR imaging. Previous work has evaluated several magnet implants for position and magnetization stability, as well as for image artifacts under MRI. Yet, the intramuscular magnets used for prosthetic control still require evaluation for potential MRI conditionality.

Purpose: To investigate the position and magnetization stability of and image artifacts from 3-mm-diameter spherical permanent magnets (Br = 1.393 T, Hci = 1.637 MA/m) implanted within muscle.

Study type: Prospective longitudinal study.

Animal model: Porcine; one animal, eight muscles.

Field strength/sequence: 0.55-T, 1.5-T/SE, GRE.

Assessment: Permanent magnets and nonmagnetic controls were implanted into eight muscles and exposed to 1.5-T MRI 36 days post-implantation. All sites were examined histologically for evidence of implant migration (acute fibrotic response or fibrotic capsule disruption). Benchtop studies evaluated worst-case demagnetization and image artifacts (artifact radius minus implant radius). The primary measure of position stability was histological examination interpreting characteristics of progressive skeletal muscle healing. Secondary position stability analysis was performed via CT imaging.

Statistical tests: Unpaired one-sided sign test with a significance level of 0.05. Demagnetization and imaging artifacts were summarized as maximums.

Results: Fibrotic capsules were similarly intact at permanent magnet and control sites (fibrotic capsule thicknesses: 20-550 μm [magnets], 20-220 μm [controls]). No effect of MRI exposure on implant migration was observed via secondary analysis (p = 0.965 [0.55-T], p = 0.996 [1.5-T]). Maximum demagnetization was 2.1% under 0.55-T exposure and 13.5% under 1.5-T exposure, and maximum image artifact was 71 mm at both imaging strengths.

Data conclusion: The permanent magnet implants used in this study were resistant to migration and substantial demagnetization under 0.55-T and 1.5-T MRI exposure and resulted in negligible image artifacts for critical organ imaging, suggesting that the presence of these implants does not preclude a patient from receiving MR imaging up to 1.5T.

Evidence level: N/A.

Technical efficacy: Stage 5: Improvements in patient care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
6.80%
发文量
494
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (JMRI) is an international journal devoted to the timely publication of basic and clinical research, educational and review articles, and other information related to the diagnostic applications of magnetic resonance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信