## Abstract Three breast tissue expanders were evaluated for compatibility with MR imaging (1.5 Tesla). The metallic components of the breast tissue expanders were shown to be nonferromagnetic, heating .2Β°C and the artifacts varied. These results indicate that MR procedures may be performed safely
Hr imaging and vascular access ports: Ex vivo evaluation of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 t
β Scribed by Frank G. Shellock; Marcia Nogueira; Stacy Morisoli
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1995
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 508 KB
- Volume
- 5
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1053-1807
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to asacsa Futomagneh. hating. ad artifactr, associated with vabcular access ports exposed to a 1.5βT MR system. Tweatyβcight different vabcular access port. were evaluated in thb investlgation. Fmmagnetism was determined by using two previouely de techniques. Temperature changes were measured immediately before and after performing a pulse sequence on the vascular access port6 for 80 min at a speciflc absorption rate of 3.1 W/kg. Artifacts were assessed h aesoclation with the use of a fht CRASS pulse sequence. None of the vascular access ports displayed ferromnlpletim. Heating was 0.2Β°or less. The prerence of adhcts varied. depending on the component materials. The Lack of fcrromagnetiam and negligible heating indicates that MR imaging performed at 1.6 T or lees may be conducted dely in patients with any of the vascular access port. tested. None of the associated artifacts produced by the vascdar access port. is comddercd to paw a rubsttantial problem for MR imaging.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract Ex vivo testing techniques were used to determine the ferromagnetic qualities of, presence of heating in, and artifacts produced by 13 different heart valve prostheses exposed to a 1.5βT (64βMHz) magnetic resonance (MR) system. None of the heart valve prostheses showed a measurable defl
## Abstract Magnetic resonance (MR) procedures are contraindicated for patients with certain ferromagnetic biomedical implants, primarily owing to the risk of movement or dislodgment of the implants by the static magnetic field. An additional concern is the amount of artifact that the implant produ
MAGNETIC RESONANCE (MR) IMAGING is contraindicated in patients with certain ferromagnetic implants, devices, and materials, primarily because of the hazards associated with movement or dislodgment (1). This is particularly true for metallic implants located in sensitive areas of the body, such as in
## Abstract The purpose of this study was to evaluate the MR compatibility of ceramic instruments. Nine different ceramic instruments were tested with respect to ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts using previously described techniques. There was no magnetic field attraction, temperature increas