Safety of magnetic resonance imaging of stapes prostheses

Laryngoscope

Volumn 115, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 381-390

  Syms, Mark James ^a,b  

^a BARROW NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Arizona Ear Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Implant; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Otosclerosis; Safety; Stapes prosthesis

Indexed keywords

NITINOL; PLASTIC; PLATINUM; POLITEF; STAINLESS STEEL; TITANIUM;

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GUINEA PIG; HEARING LOSS; INCUS; MAGNETIC FIELD; MAGNETISM; MIDDLE EAR IMPLANT; MIDDLE EAR PROSTHESIS; NECROSIS; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SAFETY; STAPEDECTOMY; STAPES; TEMPORAL BONE; VESTIBULE;

ALLOYS; ANIMALS; DATA COLLECTION; FLUOROCARBON POLYMERS; GUINEA PIGS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETICS; OSSICULAR PROSTHESIS; PLASTICS; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SAFETY; STAINLESS STEEL; STAPES SURGERY; TITANIUM;

EID: 14744267509     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000157853.09025.49     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Maitino AJ, Levin DC, Parker L, et al. Nationwide trends in rates of utilization of noninvasive diagnostic imaging among the Medicare population between 1993 and 1999. Radiology 2003;227:113-117.
2. Declau F, Van Spaendonck M, Timmermans JP, et al. Prevalence of otosclerosis in an unselected series of temporal bones. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:596-602.
3. Applebaum EL, Valvassori GE. Effects of magnetic resonance imaging fields on stapedectomy prostheses. Arch Otolaryngol 1985;111:820-821.
4. Mattucci KF, Setzen M, Hyman R, Chaturvedi G. The effect of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging on metallic middle ear prostheses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;94:441-443.
5. Leon JA, Gabriele OF. Middle ear prosthesis: significance in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1987; 5:405-406.
6. Shellock FG, Schatz CJ. Metallic otologic implants: in vitro assessment of ferromagnetism at 1.5 T. Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:279-281.
7. Applebaum EL, Valvassori GE. Further studies on the effects of magnetic resonance imaging fields on middle ear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1990;99:801-804.
8. Syms MJ, Petermann GW. Magnetic resonance imaging of stapes prostheses. Am J Otol 2000;21:494-498.
9. Williams MD, Antonelli PJ, Williams LS, Moorhead JE. Middle ear prosthesis displacement in high-strength magnetic fields. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:158-161.
10. Kwok P, Waldeck A, Strutz J. How do metallic middle ear implants behave in the MRI?. Laryngorhinootologie 2003; 82:13-18.
11. MR Imaging of Gyrus ENT LLC Otology Implant Devices. Memphis, TN: Gyrus ENT, 2001.
12. Klucznik RP, Carrier DA, Pyka R, Haid RW. Placement of a ferromagnetic intracerebral aneurysm clip in a magnetic field with a fatal outcome. Radiology 1993;187:855-856.
13. Kanal E, Shellock FG, Lewin JS. Aneurysm clip testing for ferromagnetic properties: clip variability issues. Radiology 1996;200:576-578.
14. Health U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiologic Health. A Primer on Medical Device Interactions with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems. Rockville, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1997.
15. White DW. Interaction between magnetic fields and metallic ossicular prostheses. Am J Otol 1987;8:90-92.
16. Garaventa G, Satragno L, Vellucci F, et al. The interactions between metal stapes prostheses and high-intensity magnetic fields during magnetic resonance tomography. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 1991;11:455-463.
17. Adamczyk M, Appleton CM, Parell GJ, Antonelli PJ. Stapedectomy in the guinea pig. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;121:581-584.
18. Wells JR, Gernon WH, Ward G, Davis RK, Hays LL. Otosurgical model in the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;95:450-457.
19. Goksu N, Haziroglu R, Kemaloglu Y, et al. Anatomy of the guinea pig temporal bone. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992; 101:699-704.
20. LDJ Electronics IT, MI, Worcester, MA. LDJ Application Note 4.05.
21. Dujovny M, Dujovny N, Fiat D, et al. Magnetic field gradients in the MRI suite and their effects on aneurysm clips. Neurol Res 1996;18:483-486.
22. New PF, Rosen BR, Brady TJ, et al. Potential hazards and artifacts of ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic surgical and dental materials and devices in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 1983;147:139-148.
23. Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 1996;23:815-850.
24. Teitelbaum GP, Bradley WG Jr, Klein BD. MR imaging artifacts, ferromagnetism, and magnetic torque of intravascular filters, stents, and coils. Radiology 1988;166: 657-664.
25. Shape Memory Applications I. NiTi Smart Sheet #9. San Jose, CA: Shape Memory Applications, Inc., 1999;1.
26. Shellock FG. Pocket Guide to MR Procedures and Metallic Objects: Update 2001. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001.
27. Kanal E. UPMC Health System-Magnetic Resonance Safety Site. Available at: http://www.radiology.upmc.edu/MR-safety/q&a/stapes.html. Accessed August 10, 2003.
28. Kanal E, Borgstede JP, Barkovich AJ, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on MR safety. AJR AJR 2002;178: 1335-1347.
29. Kanal E, Shellock FG. The value of published data on MR compatibility of metallic implants and devices. Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1394-1396.
30. MR Imaging of Gyrus ENT LLC Otology Implant Devices. Memphis, TN: Gyrus ENT, 2001.
31. Database. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Medical Device Report. Search MDR Database, August 10, 2003. Rockville, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2003.