ArticleCureus2025
Intraoperative MRI Utilization by Moving Patients to the Magnet: Results From a Prospective Series of Brain Tumor Operations.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) is valuable for assessing the extent of brain tumor resections and preventing repeat procedures for unexpected residual tumors. However, prolonged procedure times and restrictions on ferromagnetic materials deter widespread iMRI use. This study explored two methods to increase iMRI utilization, both involving transferring patients to the magnet after wound closure rather than moving the magnet into the operating room (OR). Methods A process improvement database of 40 consecutive patients undergoing iMRI for brain tumor surgery was analyzed. Phase-1, conducted between November 2020 and February 2021, involved transporting patients to the magnet and returning them to the OR for extubation. Phase-2, conducted between August 2021 and November 2021, designated an extubation area in the recovery room, eliminating the need to return patients to the OR. Diagnosis was used to match Phase-1 and Phase-2 cohorts with a retrospective comparative cohort (Phase-0) collected between June 2019 and August 2019. Several time intervals were recorded for analysis. Results A total of 57 cases were analyzed; 56% of patients were male, with a mean age of 56 years. iMRI volumes significantly increased in Phase-1 (100%, n = 20) and Phase-2 (100%, n = 19) compared to Phase-0 (22%, n = 4, p < 0.001). OR occupancy (p = 0.18) and anesthesia duration (p = 0.23) were statistically similar between groups, but the Phase-2 group demonstrated a clinically relevant median decrease of 78 minutes in case duration and a 41-minute reduction in anesthesia duration compared to Phase-0. Both Phase-1 and Phase-2 showed a significant 11-hour decrease in post-surgical MRI acquisition times compared to Phase-0 (p < 0.001). Conclusion Transferring patients to the magnet significantly increased iMRI utilization and facilitated immediate postoperative imaging without negatively impacting OR efficiency or anesthetic safety. Establishing an extubation site in the recovery room saved valuable OR time and reduced patient intubation time. The practice of "moving the patient, not the magnet," combined with recovery room extubation, is now routine in our neurosurgery service.
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.