Display options
Cite
Fujimoto K, Zaidi TA, Lampman D, et al. Comparison of SAR distribution of hip and knee implantable devices in 1.5T conventional cylindrical-bore and 1.2T open-bore vertical MRI systems. Magn Reson Med. 2021;doi: 10.1002/mrm.29007.
Fujimoto, K., Zaidi, T. A., Lampman, D., Guag, J. W., Etheridge, S., Habara, H., & Rajan, S. S. (2021). Comparison of SAR distribution of hip and knee implantable devices in 1.5T conventional cylindrical-bore and 1.2T open-bore vertical MRI systems. Magnetic resonance in medicine, . https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29007
Fujimoto, Kyoko, et al. "Comparison of SAR distribution of hip and knee implantable devices in 1.5T conventional cylindrical-bore and 1.2T open-bore vertical MRI systems." Magnetic resonance in medicine vol. (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29007
Fujimoto K, Zaidi TA, Lampman D, Guag JW, Etheridge S, Habara H, Rajan SS. Comparison of SAR distribution of hip and knee implantable devices in 1.5T conventional cylindrical-bore and 1.2T open-bore vertical MRI systems. Magn Reson Med. 2021 Nov 14; doi: 10.1002/mrm.29007. Epub 2021 Nov 14. PMID: 34775615.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Magn Reson Med. 2021 Nov 14; doi: 10.1002/mrm.29007. Epub 2021 Nov 14.

Comparison of SAR distribution of hip and knee implantable devices in 1.5T conventional cylindrical-bore and 1.2T open-bore vertical MRI systems.

Magnetic resonance in medicine

Kyoko Fujimoto, Tayeb A Zaidi, David Lampman, Joshua W Guag, Shawn Etheridge, Hideta Habara, Sunder S Rajan

Affiliations

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
  2. Hitachi Healthcare Americas, Twinsburg, Ohio, USA.
  3. Healthcare Business Unit, Hitachi, Taito, Tokyo, Japan.

PMID: 34775615 DOI: 10.1002/mrm.29007

Abstract

PURPOSE: There is increasing use of open-bore vertical MR systems that consist of two planar RF coils. A recent study showed that the RF-induced heating of a neuromodulation device was much lower in the open-bore system at the brain and the chest imaging landmarks. This study focused on the hip and knee implants and compared the specific absorption rate (SAR) distribution in human models in a 1.2T open-bore coil with that of a 1.5T conventional birdcage coil.

METHODS: Computational modeling results were compared against the measurement values using a saline phantom. The differences in RF exposure were examined between a 1.2T open-bore coil and a 1.5T conventional birdcage coil using SAR in an anatomical human model.

RESULTS: Modeling setups were validated. The body placed closed to the coil elements led to high SAR values in the birdcage system compared with the open-bore system.

CONCLUSION: Our computational modeling showed that the 1.2T planar system demonstrated a lower intensity of SAR distribution adjacent to hip and knee implants compared with the 1.5T conventional birdcage system.

© 2021 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Keywords: RF heating; RF safety; implant safety; open-bore MRI; orthopedic implant; vertical MRI

References

  1. Delfino JG, Krainak DM, Flesher SA, Miller DL. MRI-related FDA adverse event reports: a 10-yr review. Med Phys. 2019;46:5562-5571. - PubMed
  2. Shellock FG. Reference Manual for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Implants and Devices. Los Angeles, CA: Biomedical Research Publishing Group; 2014. - PubMed
  3. Song T, Xu Z, Iacono MI, Angelone LM, Rajan S. Retrospective analysis of RF heating measurements of passive medical implants. Magn Reson Med. 2018;80:2726-2730. - PubMed
  4. Oh S, Webb AG, Neuberger T, Park B, Collins CM. Experimental and numerical assessment of MRI-induced temperature change and SAR distributions in phantoms and in vivo. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63:218-223. - PubMed
  5. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Radio Frequency Induced Heating on or Near Passive Implants during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. American Society for Testing and Materials International; 2019. - PubMed
  6. Assessment of the Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Patients with an Active Implantable Medical Device. International Organization for Standardization; 2018. - PubMed
  7. Lucano E, Liberti M, Lloyd T, et al. RF induced energy for partially implanted catheters: a computational study. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Orlando, Florida, 2016. pp 1256-1259. - PubMed
  8. Zeng Q, Wang Q, Zheng J, Kainz W, Chen J. Evaluation of MRI RF electromagnetic field induced heating near leads of cochlear implants. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63:135020. - PubMed
  9. Murbach M, Neufeld E, Kainz W, Pruessmann KP, Kuster N. Whole-body and local RF absorption in human models as a function of anatomy and position within 1.5 T MR body coil. Magn Reson Med. 2014;71:839-845. - PubMed
  10. Kangarlu A, Ibrahim TS, Shellock FG. Effects of coil dimensions and field polarization on RF heating inside a head phantom. Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;23:53-60. - PubMed
  11. Hoff MN, McKinney A, Shellock FG, et al. Safety considerations of 7-T MRI in clinical practice. Radiology. 2019;292:509-518. - PubMed
  12. Makarov SN, Noetscher GM, Yanamadala J, et al. Virtual human models for electromagnetic studies and their applications. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2017;10:95-121. - PubMed
  13. Golestanirad L, Kazemivalipour E, Lampman D, et al. RF heating of deep brain stimulation implants in open-bore vertical MRI systems: a simulation study with realistic device configurations. Magn Reson Med. 2020;83:2284-2292. - PubMed
  14. Kazemivalipour E, Vu J, Lin S, et al. RF heating of deep brain stimulation implants during MRI in 1.2 T vertical scanners versus 1.5 T horizontal systems: a simulation study with realistic lead configurations. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) IEEE, Montréal, Canada, 2020. pp 6143-6146. - PubMed
  15. Koninklijke Philips NV. Scanning Patients with MR Conditional Implants. 2015. https://www.usa.philips.com/healthcare/education-resources/publications/fieldstrength/mri-and-mr-conditional-implants. Accessed February 28, 2021. - PubMed
  16. Naraghi AM, White LM. Magnetic resonance imaging of joint replacements. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2006;10:98-106. - PubMed
  17. Hayter CL, Koff MF, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35:1013-1025. - PubMed
  18. Muranaka H, Horiguchi T, Ueda Y, Usui S, Tanki N, Nakamura O. Evaluation of RF heating on hip joint implant in phantom during MRI examinations. Jpn J Radiol Technol. 2009;66:725-733. - PubMed
  19. Muranaka H, Horiguchi T, Usui S, Ueda Y, Nakamura O, Ikeda F. Dependence of RF heating on SAR and implant position in a 1.5 T MR system. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2007;6:199-209. - PubMed
  20. Powell J, Papadaki A, Hand J, Hart A, McRobbie D. Numerical simulation of SAR induced around Co-Cr-Mo hip prostheses in situ exposed to RF fields associated with 1.5 and 3 T MRI body coils. Magn Reson Med. 2012;68:960-968. - PubMed
  21. Liu Y, Chen J, Shellock FG, Kainz W. Computational and experimental studies of an orthopedic implant: MRI-related heating at 1.5-T/64-MHz and 3-T/128-MHz. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37:491-497. - PubMed
  22. Noureddine Y, Bitz AK, Ladd ME, et al. Experience with magnetic resonance imaging of human subjects with passive implants and tattoos at 7 T: a retrospective study. Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med. 2015;28:577-590. - PubMed
  23. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Radio Frequency Induced Heating on or Near Passive Implants during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International; 2011. - PubMed
  24. Suzuki S, Shimoda T, Taniguchi T. High frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging devices and magnetic resonance imaging using the same. JP2009022562. Japan Patent Office. February 5, 2009. - PubMed
  25. Lucano E, Liberti M, Mendoza GG, et al. Assessing the electromagnetic fields generated by a radiofrequency MRI body coil at 64 MHz: defeaturing versus accuracy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016;63:1591-1601. - PubMed
  26. Massey JW, Yilmaz AE. AustinMan and AustinWoman: high-fidelity, anatomical voxel models developed from the VHP color images. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), IEEE, Orlando, Florida, 2016. pp 3346-3349. - PubMed
  27. Gabriel C. Compilation of the Dielectric Properties of Body Tissues at RF and Microwave Frequencies. King’s College London (United Kingdom) Department of Physics; 1996. - PubMed
  28. Benkler S, Chavannes N, Kuster N. Novel FDTD Huygens source enables highly complex simulation scenarios on ordinary PCs. In: Proceedings of the Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium IEEE, Seattle, Washington, 2009. pp 1-4. - PubMed
  29. Boskamp EB, Fujimoto M, Edwards M. RF body coil symmetry as a function of cable routing. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the ISMRM, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2013. Abstract #2751. - PubMed
  30. Collins CM, Smith MB. Calculations of B1 distribution, SNR, and SAR for a surface coil adjacent to an anatomically-accurate human body model. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45:692-699. - PubMed
  31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Defining Adult Overweight and Obesity. 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html. Accessed February 22, 2021. - PubMed
  32. Christ A, Kainz W, Hahn EG, et al. The Virtual Family-development of surface-based anatomical models of two adults and two children for dosimetric simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2009;55:N23. - PubMed
  33. Susil RC, Camphausen K, Choyke P, et al. System for prostate brachytherapy and biopsy in a standard 1.5 T MRI scanner. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52:683-687. - PubMed
  34. Carucci LR. Imaging obese patients: problems and solutions. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38:630-646. - PubMed
  35. Ginde AA, Foianini A, Renner DM, Valley M, Camargo CA Jr. The challenge of CT and MRI imaging of obese individuals who present to the emergency department: a national survey. Obesity. 2008;16:2549-2551. - PubMed
  36. US food and drug administration. Testing and Labeling Medical Devices for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment. US Food and Drug Administration; 2021. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/testing-and-labeling-medicaldevices-safety-magnetic-resonance-mr-environment. Accessed May 23, 2021. - PubMed
  37. IT’IS Foundation. Heat Capacity. https://itis.swiss/virtual-population/tissue-properties/database/heat-capacity/. Accessed July 7, 2021. - PubMed
  38. Yao A, Zastrow E, Cabot E, et al. Anatomical model uncertainty for RF safety evaluation of metallic implants under MRI exposure. Bioelectromagnetics. 2019;40:458-471. - PubMed
  39. Lafon Y, Smith FW, Beillas P. Combination of a model-deformation method and a positional MRI to quantify the effects of posture on the anatomical structures of the trunk. J Biomech. 2010;43:1269-1278. - PubMed
  40. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Torque on Medical Devices in the Magnetic Resonance Enviroment. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International; 2017. - PubMed
  41. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Displacement Force on Medical Devices in the Magnetic Resonance Environment. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International; 2015. - PubMed
  42. Arduino A, Zanovello U, Hand J, et al. Heating of hip joint implants in MRI: the combined effect of RF and switched-gradient fields. Magn Reson Med. 2021;85:3447-3462. - PubMed

Publication Types