Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31172246›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2019

[Safety of implants in high field and ultrahigh field MRI].

O Kraff, H H Quick

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

O KraffErwin L. Hahn Institute for MR Imaging, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Kokereiallee 7, 45141, Essen, Deutschland. oliver.kraff@uni-due.de.
H H QuickErwin L. Hahn Institute for MR Imaging, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Kokereiallee 7, 45141, Essen, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt can be expected that the number of 7 T MRI systems for clinical use will increase in the future. On the other hand, almost no medical implant has been labeled MR conditional for 7 T, so far, leaving the question of implant safety unanswered to the MR operator.

methodsIn principle, the same interactions between magnetizable and electric conductive material apply at 7 T as known at lower magnetic field strengths. However, there are a few important differences that need to be taken into account to perform a profound risk-benefit analysis. After a more general introduction of technical differences between 3 and 7 T systems, the article will focus mainly on safety assessments with regard to interactions between implant and radiofrequency (RF) transmit fields. In addition, strategies to ensure access at 7 T will be discussed. RESULTS OF PRACTICAL RELEVANCE: Besides hazards due to the magnetic force which can be up to 2.3 times stronger at 7 T compared to 3 T, increased risks of RF-induced tissue heating are the most critical aspects. The resonant-length of an implant at 7 T is about 5 cm. Other than at 3 T, MR systems at 7 T are less standardized. Especially with regard to the RF transmit coil and transmission methods used, substantial differences need to be expected. Hence, it is important to critically question published safety assessments of implants and to have a thorough discussion about how this relates to the individual exposure scenario. For nonmagnetic implants without a dedicated 7 T safety evaluation, but which are 3 T MR conditional and have a certain minimum distance to the RF transmit coil, a consensus recommendation from the national network German Ultrahigh Field Imaging (GUFI) may be helpful.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstheses and ImplantsRadio WavesMagnetic FieldsMagneticsImplant lengthsMagnetic field coilsMagnetic resonance imagingRadiofrequencyRisks

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.