| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Reviews |
1 From the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California; and Institute for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Education, and Research, 7511 McConnell Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90045 (F.G.S.); and Radnet Management, Los Angeles, Calif (J.V.C.). Received May 21, 2003; revision requested July 18; revision received August 8; accepted October 8. Address correspondence to F.G.S. (e-mail: frank.shellock@gte.net).
The technology used for magnetic resonance (MR) procedures has evolved continuously during the past 20 years, yielding MR systems with stronger static magnetic fields, faster and stronger gradient magnetic fields, and more powerful radiofrequency transmission coils. Most reported cases of MR-related injuries and the few fatalities that have occurred have apparently been the result of failure to follow safety guidelines or of use of inappropriate or outdated information related to the safety aspects of biomedical implants and devices. To prevent accidents in the MR environment, therefore, it is necessary to revise information on biologic effects and safety according to changes that have occurred in MR technology and with regard to current guidelines for biomedical implants and devices. This review provides an overview of and update on MR biologic effects, discusses new or controversial MR safety topics and issues, presents evidence-based guidelines to ensure safety for patients and staff, and describes safety information for various implants and devices that have recently undergone evaluation.
© RSNA, 2004
Index terms: Magnetic resonance (MR), biological effects, **.12142 • Magnetic resonance (MR), safety, **.1214 • Reviews
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  U. M. Reddy, R. A. Filly, and J. A. Copel Prenatal Imaging: Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Obstet. Gynecol., July 1, 2008; 112(1): 145 - 157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T Dill Contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging: Non-invasive imaging Heart, July 1, 2008; 94(7): 943 - 948. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. N. Levine, A. S. Gomes, A. E. Arai, D. A. Bluemke, S. D. Flamm, E. Kanal, W. J. Manning, E. T. Martin, J. M. Smith, N. Wilke, et al. Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Cardiovascular Devices: An American Heart Association Scientific Statement From the Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Circulation, December 11, 2007; 116(24): 2878 - 2891. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. A. Jaffe, C. M. Miller, and E. M. Merkle Practice Patterns in Imaging of the Pregnant Patient with Abdominal Pain: A Survey of Academic Centers Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1128 - 1134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. J. Patel, D. L. Reede, D. S. Katz, R. Subramaniam, and J. K. Amorosa Imaging the Pregnant Patient for Nonobstetric Conditions: Algorithms and Radiation Dose Considerations RadioGraphics, November 1, 2007; 27(6): 1705 - 1722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Barth, M. P. Smith, I. Pedrosa, R. E. Lenkinski, and N. M. Rofsky Body MR Imaging at 3.0 T: Understanding the Opportunities and Challenges RadioGraphics, September 1, 2007; 27(5): 1445 - 1462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. L. DeLaPaz and for the Expert Panel on Neurologic Imaging Cerebrovascular Disease AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., June 1, 2007; 28(6): 1197 - 1199. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Pedrosa, E. A. Zeikus, D. Levine, and N. M. Rofsky MR Imaging of Acute Right Lower Quadrant Pain in Pregnant and Nonpregnant Patients RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 721 - 743. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Levin, A. O. Ortiz, and D. S. Katz Noncardiac Implantable Pacemakers and Stimulators: Current Role and Radiographic Appearance Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2007; 188(4): 984 - 991. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Patel, G. S. Bhavra, and J. R. S. O'Neill MRI scanning and orthodontics J. Orthod., December 1, 2006; 33(4): 246 - 249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Nazarian, A. Roguin, M. M. Zviman, A. C. Lardo, T. L. Dickfeld, H. Calkins, R. G. Weiss, R. D. Berger, D. A. Bluemke, and H. R. Halperin Clinical Utility and Safety of a Protocol for Noncardiac and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Patients With Permanent Pacemakers and Implantable-Cardioverter Defibrillators at 1.5 Tesla Circulation, September 19, 2006; 114(12): 1277 - 1284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Muller and A. Jerschow Nuclear spin noise imaging PNAS, May 2, 2006; 103(18): 6790 - 6792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Yang, G. Christoforidis, A. Abduljali, and D. Beversdorf Vital signs investigation in subjects undergoing MR imaging at 8T. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2006; 27(4): 922 - 928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.G. Shellock, R. Habibi, and J. Knebel Programmable CSF Shunt Valve: In Vitro Assessment of MR Imaging Safety at 3T AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., March 1, 2006; 27(3): 661 - 665. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Lederman Cardiovascular Interventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Circulation, November 8, 2005; 112(19): 3009 - 3017. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. R. Muhler Can Intrauterine Devices Actually Be Considered Safe at 3-T MR Imaging? Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 709 - 709. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
