Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1100389
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
Verhalten von Titan-Mittelohrimplantaten bei 1,5 und 3 Tesla Feldstärke in der Magnetresonanztomographie
Behaviour of Titanium Middle Ear Implants at 1.5 and 3 Tesla Field Strength in Magnetic Resonance ImagingPublication History
eingereicht: 6. Juni 2008
akzeptiert: 14. Juli 2008
Publication Date:
08 December 2008 (online)
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund: Untersuchungen über die MRT-Tauglichkeit von Mittelohrimplantaten aus Titan bei 1,5 und 3 Tesla Feldstärke (TF) MRT-Systemen.
Methode: Die Erwärmung von 17 verschiedenen Mittelohr-Implantaten (Mittelohr: MO) aus Titan unter dem Einfluss von starken Hochfrequenzimpulsen wurde in vitro untersucht. Die Beurteilung der Anziehungskräfte der Implantate erfolgte schwimmend auf Moosgummi (MG) im Wasserbad.
Ergebnisse: Eine Erwärmung der Implantate wurde bei keiner der verwendeten Sequenzen sowohl bei 3 als auch bei 1,5 TF beobachtet. Alle 17 Implantate schwammen mit geringer Geschwindigkeit (0,0004–0,0014 m/s) auf das Magnetfeld zu. Bei 1,5 TF kam es bei den getesteten MO-Implantaten schwimmend zu einer Geschwindigkeit von max. 0,0002 m/s und 0,0005 m/s bei den Paukenröhrchen.
Schlussfolgerung: Es fand sich keine Erwärmung bei allen untersuchten MO-Implantaten sowohl bei 1,5 und 3 TF. Die durch das statische Magnetfeld wirkenden Anziehungskräfte sind bei 1,5 und 3 TF insgesamt gering, sodass bei sachgerechter intraoperativer Verankerung keine Dislokation zu erwarten ist. Die Indikation zur Untersuchung sollte bei 3 TF aufgrund der anatomisch sensiblen Region streng geprüft werden.
Abstract
Behaviour of Titanium Middle Ear Implants at 1.5 and 3 Tesla Field Strength in Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Background: Investigations into the MRI compatibility of middle ear implants made from titanium alloys with 1.5 and 3.0 tesla MRI systems which are frequently used for imaging diagnostics.
Method: 17 different middle ear (ME) implants (ossicular replacement prosthesis (ORP) and ventilation tubes) made from titanium were tested in vitro. Potential warming was determined via an MRI-compatible fibre optic temperature sensor under the influence of sequences with high-level high frequency impulses. An assessment of the attractive force of the implants was carried out placed on a Petri dish under vibration and floating on rubber-sponge (RS) in a water bath.
Results: No significant warming of the implants was observed with any of the used sequences at either 3 or 1.5 Tesla field strength (TF). With 3 TF, all 17 implants changed their position on the surface of the water and moved at a slow speed (0.0004–0.0014 m/s) towards the magnetic field. With 1.5 TF, the tested ME implants moved at a maximum speed of 0.0002 m/s and in the case of the ventilation tubes at 0.0005 m/s.
Conclusion: No warming occurred in any of the tested middle ear implants at either 1.5 or 3 TF. The attractive forces exerted through the static magnetic field were overall low at 1.5 and 3 TF, indicating that no dislocation is to be expected if intraoperative anchoring is correctly conducted. Nevertheless, the indication for examination at 3 TF should be carefully considered due to the anatomically sensitive region.
Schlüsselwörter
Magnetresonanztomografie - Mittelohrimplantate - Titan-Implantate
Key words
Magnetic resonance imaging - middle ear implants - titanium implants
Literatur
- 1 Fisch U, Schmid S. Total reconstruction of the ossicular chain. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1994; 27 785-797
- 2 Ho SY, Battista RA, Wiet RJ. Early results with titanium ossicular implants. Otol Neurotol. 2003; 24 149-152
- 3 Begall K, Zimmermann H. Reconstruction of the ossicular chain with titanium implants. Results of a multicenter study. Laryngorhinootologie. 2000; 79 139-145
- 4 Schwager K. Titanium as an ossicular replacement material: results after 336 days of implantation in the rabbit. Am J Otol. 1998; 19 569-573
- 5 Sudhoff H, Lindner N, Gronemeyer J, Dazert S, Hildmann H. Study of osteointegration of a titanium prosthesis to the stapes: observations on an accidentally extracted stapes. Otol Neurotol. 2005; 26 583-586
- 6 Sommer T, Maintz D, Schmiedel A. et al . High field MR imaging: magnetic field interactions of aneurysm clips, coronary artery stents and iliac artery stents with a 3.0 Tesla MR system. Rofo. 2004; 176 731-738
- 7 Schenck JF. MR safety at high magnetic fields. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1998; 6 715-730
- 8 Yang QX, Smith MB, Briggs RW, Rycyna RE. Microimaging at 14 tesla using GESEPI for removal of magnetic susceptibility artifacts in T(2)(*)-weighted image contrast. J Magn Reson. 1999; 141 1-6
- 9 Applebaum EL, Valvassori GE. Effects of magnetic resonance imaging fields on stapedectomy prostheses. Arch Otolaryngol. 1985; 111 820-821
- 10 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
- 11 Buchli R, Boesiger P, Meier D. Heating effects of metallic implants by MRI examinations. Magn Reson Med. 1988; 7 255-261
- 12 Davis PL, Crooks L, Arakawa M, McRee R, Kaufman L, Margulis AR. Potential hazards in NMR imaging: heating effects of changing magnetic fields and RF fields on small metallic implants. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981; 137 857-860
- 13 Garaventa G, Satragno L, Vellucci F, Pagano M, Pallestrini EA. The interactions between metal stapes prostheses and high-intensity magnetic fields during magnetic resonance tomography. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 1991; 11 455-463
- 14 Huttenbrink KB, Grosse-Nobis W. Experimental studies and theoretical considerations on the behavior of stapes metal prostheses in the magnetic field of a nuclear magnetic resonance tomograph. Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg). 1987; 66 127-130
- 15 Kwok P, Waldeck A, Strutz J. How do metallic middle ear implants behave in the MRI?. Laryngorhinootologie. 2003; 82 13-18
- 16 Marra S, Leonetti JP, Konior RJ, Raslan W. Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on implantable eyelid weights. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1995; 104 448-452
- 17 Wild DC, Head K, Hall DA. Safe magnetic resonance scanning of patients with metallic middle ear implants. Clin Otolaryngol. 2006; 31 508-510
- 18 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
- 19 Shellock FG, Curtis JS. MR imaging and biomedical implants, materials, and devices: an updated review. Radiology. 1991; 180 541-550
- 20 Syms AJ, Petermann GW. Magnetic resonance imaging of stapes prostheses. Am J Otol. 2000; 21 494-498
- 21 Syms MJ. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging of stapes prostheses. Laryngoscope. 2005; 115 381-390
- 22 Martin AD, Driscoll CL, Wood CP, Felmlee JP. Safety evaluation of titanium middle ear prostheses at 3.0 tesla. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005; 132 537-542
-
23 Standard test methods for middle ear implants.
In:ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials . 2002 - 24 Schrom T, Bauknecht H, Berghaus A, Scherer H. Effects of magnetic resonance tomography on upper eyelid implants. HNO. 2005; 53 741-746
- 25 Heller JW, Brackmann DE, Tucci DL, Nyenhuis JA, Chou CK. Evaluation of MRI compatibility of the modified nucleus multichannel auditory brainstem and cochlear implants. Am J Otol. 1996; 17 724-729
- 26 Kanal E, Meltzer CC, Adelson PD, Scheuer MP. Platinum subdural grid: MR imaging compatibility testing. Radiology. 1999; 211 886-888
- 27 Teissl C, Kremser C, Hochmair ES, Hochmair-Desoyer IJ. Magnetic resonance imaging and cochlear implants: compatibility and safety aspects. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999; 9 26-38
Korrespondenzadresse
Dr. med. Hans-Christian Bauknecht
Abteilung Neuroradiologie
Institut für Radiologie, Charité
Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Charitéplatz 1
10098 Berlin
Email: christian.bauknecht@charite.de