ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
MRI Safety Considerations for Permanent Magnet Implants in Muscle.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- MRI Safety Considerations for Permanent Magnet Implants in Muscle.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPermanent 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 (B 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.
resultsFibrotic 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
conclusionThe 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.
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.