ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2024
Safety of intracranial electrodes in an MRI environment: a technical report.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIntracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) involves placing intracranial electrodes to localise seizures in patients with medically refractory epilepsy. While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enables visualisation of electrodes within patient-specific anatomy, the safety of these electrodes must be confirmed prior to routine clinical utilisation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of iEEG electrodes from a particular manufacturer in a 3.0-Tesla (3.0T) MRI environment.
methodsMeasurements of magnetically induced displacement force and torque were determined for each of the 10 test articles using standardised techniques. Test articles were subsequently evaluated for radiofrequency-induced heating using a Perspex phantom in both open and 'fault' conditions. Additionally, we assessed radiofrequency (RF)-induced heating with all test articles placed into the phantom simultaneously to simulate an implantation, again in both open and 'fault' conditions. Finally, each test article was evaluated for MRI artefacts.
resultsThe magnetically induced displacement force was found to be less than the force on the article due to gravity for all test articles. Similarly, the maximum magnetically induced torque was less than the worst-case torque due to gravity for all test articles apart from the 8-contact strip - for which it was 11% greater - and the depthalon cap. The maximum temperature change for any portion of any test article assessed individually was 1.7°C, or 1.2°C for any device component meant to be implanted intracranially. In the implantation configuration, the maximum recorded temperature change was 0.7°C.
conclusionsMRI may be safely performed for localising iEEG electrodes at 3.0T under certain conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.