Most orthopedic implants and materials do not pose problems for patients undergoing MRI procedures. MRI may be hazardous for external fixation systems, however, because of the length of the implant or the formation of a conductive loop.
Frank Shellock, Ph.D.
Adjunct clinical professor of radiology and medicine, University of Southern California and Institute for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Education, and Research
www.MRIsafety.com
www.IMRSER.org
Most orthopedic implants and materials do not pose problems for patients undergoing MRI procedures. MRI may be hazardous for external fixation systems, however, because of the length of the implant or the formation of a conductive loop.
External fixation systems are specially designed frames, clamps, rods, rod-to-rod couplings, pins, posts, fasteners, wire fixations, fixation bolts, washers, nuts, hinges, sockets, connecting bars, screws, and other components used in orthopedic and reconstructive surgery.
Indications for external fixation systems are varied, including the following treatment applications:
The assessment of MRI safety issues for external fixation systems is especially challenging because of the myriad possible components, many of which are made from conductive materials, and the many configurations used for these devices.
The primary concern is MRI-related heating, which is dependent on the particular aspects of the external fixation system. The specific MRI conditions - strength of the static magnetic field, radiofrequency, type of RF transmit coil, pulse sequence, body part imaged - directly affect the safety aspects of scanning patients with external fixation systems.
For each external fixation device that has undergone MRI safety testing and applied for approval of labeling from the FDA, highly specific guidelines need to be followed relative to a given device configuration and the MRI conditions used for the imaging procedure. This information will be contained in the Instructions for Use for a given external fixation device. Imaging protocols will vary accordingly.
REFERENCE
Shellock FG. Reference manual for magnetic resonance safety, implants, and devices. 2006 ed.
Can MRI-Based Deep Learning Improve Risk Stratification in PI-RADS 3 Cases?
January 30th 2025In external validation testing, a deep learning model demonstrated an average AUC of 87.6 percent for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA) on prostate MRI for patients with PI-RADS 3 assessments.
Can Deep Learning Radiomics with bpMRI Bolster Accuracy for Prostate Cancer Prognosis?
January 22nd 2025An emerging deep learning radiomics model based on biparametric MRI (bpMRI) offered a 14 to 17 percent higher AUC range than PI-RADS scoring for predicting the aggressiveness of prostate cancer, according to new research findings.