Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2021 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Magnetic Resonance

MRI following scoliosis surgery? An analysis of implant heating, displacement, torque, and susceptibility artifacts

Authors: Andreas Heinrich, Maximilian Reinhold, Felix V. Güttler, Georg Matziolis, Ulf K.-M. Teichgräber, Timo Zippelius, Patrick Strube

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2021

Abstract

Objectives

The implant constructs used in scoliosis surgery are often long with a high screw density. Therefore, it is generally believed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should not be carried out after scoliosis surgery, with the result that computed tomography is often preferred despite the ionizing radiation involved. The objective of this study was to evaluate the MRI compatibility of long pedicle-screw-rod constructs at 1.5 T and 3 T using standardized methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

Methods

Constructs between 130 and 430 mm long were systematically examined according to the ASTM standards F2182 (radio frequency–induced heating), F2119 (susceptibility artifacts), F2213 (magnetically induced torque), and F2052 (magnetically induced displacement force).

Results

The maximum heating in the magnetic field was 1.3 K. Heating was significantly influenced by magnetic field strength (p < 0.001), implant length (p = 0.048), and presence of cross-links (p = 0.001). The maximum artifact width for different lengths of the anatomically bent titanium rods with CoCr alloy ranged between 14.77 ± 2.93 mm (TSE) and 17.49 ± 1.82 mm (GRE) for 1.5 T and between 23.67 ± 2.39 mm (TSE) and 27.77 ± 2.37 mm (GRE) for 3 T. TiCP and TiAl showed the smallest and CoCr and CoCr Plus the largest artifact widths. The magnetically induced torque and displacement force were negligible.

Conclusions

MRI following scoliosis surgery with long implant constructs is safe with the patient in supine position. Although susceptibility artifacts can severely limit the diagnostic value, the examination of other regions is possible.

Key Points

• Large spinal implants are not necessarily a contraindication for MRI; MR conditional status can be examined according to the ASTM standards F2182, F2119, F2213, and F2052.

• A metallic pedicle-screw-rod system could be reliably and safely examined in all combinations of length (130 to 430 mm), configuration, and material in a B₀ at 1.5 T and 3 T.

• According to ASTM F2503, the examined pedicle-screw-rod system is MR conditional and especially the young patients can benefit from a non-ionizing radiation MRI examination.

Tsukimura I, Murakami H, Sasaki M et al (2017) Assessment of magnetic field interactions and radiofrequency-radiation-induced heating of metallic spinal implants in 7 T field. J Orthop Res 35:1831–1837. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23464

Zou YF, Chu B, Wang CB, Hu ZY (2015) Evaluation of MR issues for the latest standard brands of orthopedic metal implants: plates and screws. Eur J Radiol 84:450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.12.001

McComb C, Allan D, Condon B (2009) Evaluation of the translational and rotational forces acting on a highly ferromagnetic orthopedic spinal implant in magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:449–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21668

Rupp RE, Ebraheim NA, Wong FF (1996) The value of magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative spine with titanium implants. J Spinal Disord 9:342–346CrossRef

ASTM F2182-19E02 (2020) Standard test method for measurement of radio frequency induced heating on or near passive implants during magnetic resonance imaging. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.1520/F2182-19E02

Zeng Q, Liu J, Angelone LM et al (2018) Investigation of RF-induced heating near interventional catheters at 1.5 T MRI: a combined modeling and experimental study. IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat 61:1423–1431. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2018.2862249

Ono A, Arao S, Takata S, Gotanda T, Gotanda R, Tabuchi A (2019) Effect of weight input in magnetic resonance imaging system on radio-frequency-induced heating of metallic implants. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2018. Springer, pp 11–14

Woods TO (2003) MRI Safety and Compatibility of Implants and Medical Devices. In: Winters GL, Nutt MJ, (eds). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP11156S

Heinrich A, Güttler FV, Schlesies F, Aschenbach R, Eckardt N, Teichgräber UK (2017) In vitro stent assessment by MRI: visibility of lumen and artifacts for 27 modern stents. Biomed Tech (Berl) 62:565–573. https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2016-0008

10.

Heinrich A, Teichgräber UK, Güttler FV (2015) Measurement of susceptibility artifacts with histogram-based reference value on magnetic resonance images according to standard ASTM F2119. Biomed Tech (Berl) 60:541–549. https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2014-0184

11.

ASTM F2119-07 (2013) Standard test method for evaluation of MR image artifacts from passive implants. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.1520/F2119-07R13

12.

ASTM F2213-17 (2017) Standard test method for measurement of magnetically induced torque on medical devices in the magnetic resonance environment. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.1520/F2213-17.

13.

Klucznik RP, Carrier DA, Pyka R, Haid RW (1993) Placement of a ferromagnetic intracerebral aneurysm clip in a magnetic field with a fatal outcome. Radiology 187:855–856. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.187.3.8497645

14.

Kelly W, Paglen P, Pearson J, Soloman M (1986) Ferromagnetism of intraocular foreign body causes unilateral blindness after MR study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 7:243–245PubMed

15.

Jansson KF, Håkansson B, Reinfeldt S, Taghavi H, Eeg-Olofsson M (2014) MRI induced torque and demagnetization in retention magnets for a bone conduction implant. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61:1887–1893. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2014.2309978

16.

Güttler F, Heinrich A, Teichgräber U (2015) Whole-body ferromagnetic detector systems in clinical MRI. Radiologe 55:649–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-015-2813-0

17.

ASTM F2052-15 (2015) Standard test method for measurement of magnetically induced displacement force on medical devices in the magnetic resonance environment. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.1520/F2052-15

18.

Heinrich A, Dörschel J, Mashoor M, Güttler F, Teichgräber U (2019) Development of an Apparatus for Digital Measurement of Magnetically Induced Torque on Medical Implants to Facilitate the Application of the ASTM F2213 Standard. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 66:3420–3425. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2019.2905236

19.

Muranaka H, Horiguchi T, Usui S et al (2006) Evaluation of RF heating on humerus implant in phantoms during 1.5 T MR imaging and comparisons with electromagnetic simulation. Magn Reson Med Sci 5:79–88. https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.5.79

20.

Goldstein LS, Dewhirst MW, Repacholi M, Kheifets L (2003) Summary, conclusions and recommendations: adverse temperature levels in the human body. Int J Hyperthermia 19:373–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/0265673031000090701

21.

Muranaka H, Horiguchi T, Ueda Y, Usui S, Tanki N, Nakamura O (2010) Evaluation of RF heating on hip joint implant in phantom during MRI examinations. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 66:725–733. https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.66.725

22.

Muranaka H, Horiguchi T, Ueda Y, Tanki N (2011) Evaluation of RF heating due to various implants during MR procedures. Magn Reson Med Sci 10:11–19. https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.10.11

23.

Langman DA, Goldberg IB, Finn JP, Ennis DB (2011) Pacemaker lead tip heating in abandoned and pacemaker-attached leads at 1.5 tesla MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:426–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22463

24.

Kainz W (2007) MR heating tests of MR critical implants. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:450–451. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21020

25.

Armenean C, Perrin E, Armenean M, Beuf O, Pilleul F, Saint-Jalmes H (2004) RF-induced temperature elevation along metallic wires in clinical magnetic resonance imaging: influence of diameter and length. Magn Reson Med 52:1200–1206. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20246

26.

Nordbeck P, Fidler F, Weiss I et al (2008) Spatial distribution of RF-induced E-fields and implant heating in MRI. Magn Reson Med 60:312–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.21475

27.

Etemadifar MR, Andalib A, Rahimian A, Nodushan SMHT (2018) Cobalt chromium-titanium rods versus titanium-titanium rods for treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; which type of rod has better postoperative outcomes? Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 64:1085–1090. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.64.12.1085

28.

Müller GM, Lundin B, von Schewelov T, Müller MF, Ekberg O, Månsson S (2015) Evaluation of metal artifacts in clinical MR images of patients with total hip arthroplasty using different metal artifact-reducing sequences. Skeletal Radiol 44:353–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-2051-y

29.

Liu Y, Chen J, Shellock FG, Kainz W (2013) 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 37:491–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23764

30.

Yang R, Zheng J, Kainz W, Chen J (2017) Numerical investigations of MRI RF-induced heating for external fixation device in TEM and birdcage body coils at 3 T. IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat 60:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2017.2741420

31.

Ganapathi M, Joseph G, Savage R, Jones A, Timms B, Lyons K (2002) MRI susceptibility artefacts related to scaphoid screws: the effect of screw type, screw orientation and imaging parameters. J Hand Surg Br 27:165–170. https://doi.org/10.1054/jhsb.2001.0717

32.

Edwards MB, Taylor KM, Shellock FG (2000) Prosthetic heart valves: evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 12:363–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-2586(200008)12:2<363::aid-jmri21>3.0.co;2-3

33.

Olsrud J, Lätt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Björkman-Burtscher IM (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging 22:433–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20391

34.

Kolind SH, MacKay AL, Munk PL, Xiang QS (2004) Quantitative evaluation of metal artifact reduction techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:487–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20144

35.

Griffin JF IV, Archambault NS, Mankin JM et al (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging in cadaver dogs with metallic vertebral implants at 3 Tesla: evaluation of the WARP-turbo spin echo sequence. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E1548-1553. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a58b14

36.

Gao F, Wei Y, Wei S, Kan X, Yinghui G (2017) Feasibility of reducing artifacts of spine metal implants at 3.0 T MRI. Chin J Radiol 51:519–524

37.

ASTM F2503-20 (2020) Standard practice for marking medical devices and other items for safety in the magnetic resonance environment. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.1520/F2503-20

Title: MRI following scoliosis surgery? An analysis of implant heating, displacement, torque, and susceptibility artifacts
Authors: Andreas Heinrich
Maximilian Reinhold
Felix V. Güttler
Georg Matziolis
Ulf K.-M. Teichgräber
Timo Zippelius
Patrick Strube
Publication date: 01-06-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Scoliosis
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07546-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

MRI following scoliosis surgery? An analysis of implant heating, displacement, torque, and susceptibility artifacts

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Building a dual-energy CT service line in abdominal radiology

Use of dual-energy CT for renal mass assessment

Correction to: Deep venous drainage variant rate and degree may be higher in patients with perimesencephalic than in non-perimesencephalic angiogram-negative subarachnoid hemorrhage

Visibility of significant prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)—do we still need contrast media?

Aortic calcification is associated with non-infective rather than infective postoperative complications following colorectal cancer resection: an observational cohort study

Do not forget the brachial plexus—prevalence of distal brachial plexus pathology on routine shoulder MRI