EMF exposure variation among MRI sequences from pediatric examination protocols.

Jennifer Frankel, Kjell Hansson Mild, Johan Olsrud, Jonna Wilén
Author Information
  1. Jennifer Frankel: Department of Radiation Sciences, Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. ORCID
  2. Kjell Hansson Mild: Department of Radiation Sciences, Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. ORCID
  3. Johan Olsrud: Center for Medical Imaging and Physiology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
  4. Jonna Wilén: Department of Radiation Sciences, Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Abstract

The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exposure environment is unique due to the mixture and intensity of magnetic fields involved. Current safety regulations are based on well-known acute effects of heating and neuroexcitation while the scientific grounds for possible long-term effects from MRI exposure are lacking. Epidemiological research requires careful exposure characterization, and as a first step toward improved exposure assessment we set out to characterize the MRI-patient exposure environment. Seven MRI sequences were run on a 3-Tesla scanner while the radiofrequency and gradient magnetic fields were measured inside the scanner bore. The sequences were compared in terms of 14 different exposure parameters. To study within-sequence variability, we varied sequence settings such as flip angle and slice thickness one at a time, to determine if they had any impact on exposure endpoints. There were significant differences between two or more sequences for all fourteen exposure parameters. Within-sequence differences were up to 60% of the corresponding between-sequence differences, and a 5-8 fold exposure increase was caused by variations in flip angle, slice spacing, and field of view. MRI exposure is therefore not only sequence-specific but also patient- and examination occurrence-specific, a complexity that requires careful consideration for an MRI exposure assessment in epidemiological studies to be meaningful. Bioelectromagnetics. 40:3-15, 2019. © 2018 The Authors. Bioelectromagnetics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords

References

  1. Med Phys. 2012 May;39(5):2334-41 [PMID: 22559603]
  2. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010 Jan;31(1):85-7 [PMID: 19753611]
  3. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992 Mar 31;649:96-117 [PMID: 1580521]
  4. J Magn Reson. 2005 Jun;174(2):279-86 [PMID: 15862245]
  5. Med Phys. 2013 Dec;40(12):122303 [PMID: 24320534]
  6. Front Public Health. 2018 Mar 12;6:66 [PMID: 29594090]
  7. Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Jun;33(5):681-9 [PMID: 25660641]
  8. Magn Reson Med. 2017 Jun;77(6):2250-2262 [PMID: 27373901]
  9. Radiat Res. 2017 Jan;187(1):1-6 [PMID: 28054836]
  10. Neuroimage. 2018 Mar;168:33-58 [PMID: 28336426]
  11. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16(6):396-401 discussion 402-6 [PMID: 8789071]
  12. J Radiol Prot. 1998 Sep;18(3):185-93 [PMID: 9791809]

Grants

  1. 521-2013-2702/Swedish Research Council

MeSH Term

Child
Electromagnetic Fields
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Radiation Exposure
Time Factors

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0exposureMRIsequencesmagneticassessmentdifferencesenvironmentfieldseffectsrequirescarefulscannerradiofrequencyparametersflipangleslicefieldexaminationBioelectromagneticsresonanceimaginguniqueduemixtureintensityinvolvedCurrentsafetyregulationsbasedwell-knownacuteheatingneuroexcitationscientificgroundspossiblelong-termlackingEpidemiologicalresearchcharacterizationfirststeptowardimprovedsetcharacterizeMRI-patientSevenrun3-Teslagradientmeasuredinsideborecomparedterms14differentstudywithin-sequencevariabilityvariedsequencesettingsthicknessonetimedetermineimpactendpointssignificanttwofourteenWithin-sequence60%correspondingbetween-sequence5-8foldincreasecausedvariationsspacingviewthereforesequence-specificalsopatient-occurrence-specificcomplexityconsiderationepidemiologicalstudiesmeaningful40:3-152019©2018AuthorsPublishedWileyPeriodicalsIncEMFvariationamongpediatricprotocolschildrenelectromagneticepidemiology

Similar Articles

Cited By (4)