From the November 2022 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine
Masks and MR safety: researchers examine the risks
Wearing the wrong face mask in or around an MR scanner can pose serious risks, including mask displacement and face burns, as well as artifacts that make images unusable and result in repeat scans. Despite this, there is no official guidance on what masks are safe to use.
Ad Statistics
Times Displayed: 173792
Times Visited: 3176 For those who need to move fast and expand clinical capabilities -- and would love new equipment -- the uCT 550 Advance offers a new fully configured 80-slice CT in up to 2 weeks with routine maintenance and parts and Software Upgrades for Life™ included.
In a July study, researchers at Cardiff University found these outcomes were possible when wearing certain types of masks due to the ferromagnetic materials within them. Testing eight different types, they found that five contained magnetic components that they say are MR unsafe.
To prevent these adverse events, they recommend a color-coded system. “We suggest that where possible, surgical masks should be ordered in a separate color to distinguish between an ‘MR safe’ and an ‘MR unsafe’ surgical mask,” said lead study author Dr. Bethany Keenan, from Cardiff University’s school of engineering, in a statement.
The scientists performed three MR scans on a 3D printed model of a head and neck fitted with eight commercially available FFP3 masks. Safety was based on the presence of ferromagnetic and metallic materials, as well as a measurable deflection at the MR bore, and a temperature greater than 40°C during testing.
Two of the masks were deemed MR safe. One was labeled MR conditional because there was a potential risk of local heating under certain conditions within the MR machine. “It is extremely important to not assume that a mask is safe prior to an MR examination, and to conduct a safety evaluation to determine which components are made of ferromagnetic metals and which are non-ferromagnetic metal,” said Keenan.
Steven Ford
Possible problems with this study
March 08, 2023 12:47
The study was partially sponsored by the manufacturer of the ultra low field MRI and some of the physicians were investors in that company. This alone does not mean that the study is invalid.
The study you cite DOES NOT show that the low field MRI is nearly as effective as high field MRI in diagnosing stroke. Most importantly, the patients imaged in the ULF scanner had already been diagnosed with a stroke before imaging a second time with the low field machine. A more rigorous study would use a double-blind process.
Secondly, some of the patients were previously imaged using CT, not MRI. This is the very definition of an apples to oranges comparison.
The MRI scanner in question has limited resolution compared with virtually every MRI in the USA, even 20-year old scanners. It cannot image very small tumors or bleeds.
Finally, the study states that about 80% of the strokes were correctly identified. A more accurate headline would be 'ULF MRI leads to correct diagnosis 80% of the time' or 'ULF MRI Better Than Nothing'. More critically but more accurately, 'ULF MRI is a Poor Alternative if You Have Another Choice'.
A more meaningful study would compare low-cost CT scans to the use of this innovative and clever scanner, because they are more readily available and less costly.
This study has anecdotal value.
to rate and post a comment