External Orthopaedic Implants in the Magnetic Resonance Environment: Current Concepts and Controversies

Perspectives and institutional policies on patient safety and image quality regarding the use of knee-spanning external fixators in MRI: A survey study of the Society of Skeletal Radiology

OBJECTIVE

Concerns regarding patient safety and image quality have made the use of knee-spanning external fixators in MRI a challenging clinical scenario. The purpose of our study was to poll practicing musculoskeletal radiologists on their personal experiences regarding the use of knee-spanning external fixators in MRI in an effort to consolidate practice trends for the radiologists' benefit.

METHODS

A 27-item survey was created to address the institutional use, safety, adverse events, quality, and perspectives of the radiologist related to MRI of an externally fixated knee. The survey was distributed to 1739 members of the Society of Skeletal Radiology.

RESULTS

A total of 72 members of the Society of Skeletal Radiology completed the survey. Most notably, 40 of 72 (55.56%) respondents are permitted to place a knee-spanning external fixator inside the MR bore at their institution, while19 of 72 (26.39%) respondents are not permitted to do so. Fourteen of 32 (43.75%) respondents have institutional guidelines for safely performing an MRI of an externally fixated knee. Twenty-five of 32 (78.13%) respondents are comfortable permitting an MRI of an externally fixated knee.

CONCLUSION

We found a general lack of consensus regarding the decision to scan a patient with a knee-spanning external fixator in MRI. Many institutions lack safety guidelines, and providers rely upon a heterogeneous breadth of resources for safety information. A re-examination of the FDA device labeling nomenclature and expectations of the individual manufacturers may be needed to bridge this gap and help direct management decisions placed upon the provider.

Patient Safety in MRI with the Use of a Joint-Spanning External Fixator for Knee Dislocation: A Critical Analysis Review

» Universal safety guidelines for the use of a knee-spanning external fixator in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are unlikely to be established considering the high variability in device construct configurations.» Per the US Food and Drug Administration, manufacturers are to provide parameters for safe MRI scanning for "MR Conditional" devices; however, such labeling may be limited in detail. Physicians should reference manufacturer labels as a starting point while making an educated clinical decision.» Scanning of a knee-spanning external fixator inside the MR bore has been safely demonstrated in previous studies, although with small sample sizes.» When considering MRI in a patient treated with a knee-spanning external fixator, physicians should use all available resources and coordinate with their medical team to make a clinically reasonable decision contrasting patient benefit vs. potential harm.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Knee in the Presence of Bridging External Fixation: A Comparative Experimental Evaluation of Four External Fixators, Including Dolphix®

Performing MR investigation on patients instrumented with external fixators is still controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of MR imaging of the knee structures in the presence of bridging external fixators. Different cadaveric lower limbs were instrumented with the MR-conditional external fixators Hofmann III (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA), Large external Fixator (DePuy Synthes, Raynham, MA, USA), XtraFix (Zymmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) and a newer implant of Ketron Peek CA30 and ERGAL 7075 pins, Dolphix^®, (Citieffe, Bologna, Italy). The specimens were MR scanned before and after the instrumentation. The images were subjectively judged by a pool of blinded radiologists and then quantitatively evaluated calculating signal intensity, signal to noise and contrast to noise in the five regions of interest. The area of distortion due to the presence of metallic pins was calculated. All the images were considered equally useful for diagnosis with no differences between devices (p > 0.05). Only few differences in the quantification of images have been detected between groups while the presence of metallic components was the main limit of the procedure. The mean length of the radius of the area of distortion of the pins were 53.17 ± 8.19 mm, 45.07 ± 4.33 mm, 17 ± 5.4 mm and 37.12 ± 10.17 mm per pins provided by Zimmer, Synthes, Citieffe and Stryker, respectively (p = 0.041). The implant of Ketron Peek CA30 and ERGAL 7075 pins showed the smallest distortion area.

External Fixation Devices Within the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Bore: A Safety and Radiologic Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To (1) report the thermal changes encountered at the pin/skin interface in a cadaver with a knee-spanning external fixator inside the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) bore and (2) report on the quality of the MRI sequences collected.

METHODS

Three commonly used external fixation systems were placed on cadaveric lower extremities to simulate knee external fixation. Fiber optic thermal probes were placed at the pin/skin interface of a femoral and tibial pin. A control probe was embedded in the soft tissues of the thigh. Full knee MRI scans were performed using a 1.5-Tesla magnet. Real-time thermal data were collected. A clinically significant increase in temperature compared with the control was defined as 2°C. Two blinded radiologists evaluated the images for image quality and overall diagnostic utility using a standardized 5-point grading scale.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences in the temperature changes between the femoral/tibial pin sites and the control probe sites during each phase of the MRI scan. However, there was only one clinically significant difference in temperature change during a single sequence of one MRI scan of one of the external fixator devices. Overall image quality was graded as a 4 for each image set with 100% interobserver agreement (k = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant differences in temperature changes between the pin sites and controls over multiple MRI sequences in commonly used external fixator devices, the differences in temperature change are likely not clinically relevant. Overall image quality and interpretability of the images were excellent.

Practical Safety Considerations for Integration of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radiation Therapy

Interest in integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiation therapy (RT) practice has increased dramatically in recent years owing to its unique advantages such as excellent soft tissue contrast and capability of measuring biological properties. Continuous real-time imaging for intrafractional motion tracking without ionizing radiation serves as a particularly attractive feature for applications in RT. Despite its many advantages, the integration of MRI in RT workflows is not straightforward, with many unmet needs. MR safety remains one of the key challenges and concerns in the clinical implementation of MR simulators and MR-guided radiation therapy systems in radiation oncology. Most RT staff are not accustomed to working in an environment with a strong magnetic field. There are specific requirements in RT that are different from diagnostic applications. A large variety of implants and devices used in routine RT practice do not have clear MR safety labels. RT-specific imaging pulse sequences focusing on fast acquisition, high spatial integrity, and continuous, real-time acquisition require additional MR safety testing and evaluation. This article provides an overview of MR safety tailored toward RT staff, followed by discussions on specific requirements and challenges associated with MR safety in the RT environment. Strategies and techniques for developing an MR safety program specific to RT are presented and discussed.