Scribd
Upload
45 views1 page

Piercing MRI

There is contention between those with body piercings and the healthcare industry regarding the requirement to remove jewelry for MRI scans. For healthcare workers, projectiles, burns, and image artifacts are concerns. Pierced individuals worry about hole closure and awkwardness. Studies show that titanium, titanium alloys, and 316L stainless steel jewelry are non-ferromagnetic and safe for MRI when not in the imaging area. Type 304 stainless steel can become ferromagnetic with cold working and cause artifacts. Jewelry made from approved materials does not need removal unless in the imaging area.

Uploaded by

kriskee13
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
45 views1 page

Piercing MRI

There is contention between those with body piercings and the healthcare industry regarding the requirement to remove jewelry for MRI scans. For healthcare workers, projectiles, burns, and image artifacts are concerns. Pierced individuals worry about hole closure and awkwardness. Studies show that titanium, titanium alloys, and 316L stainless steel jewelry are non-ferromagnetic and safe for MRI when not in the imaging area. Type 304 stainless steel can become ferromagnetic with cold working and cause artifacts. Jewelry made from approved materials does not need removal unless in the imaging area.

Uploaded by

kriskee13
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

One source oI contention that

exists between people with body


piercings and the healthcare industry
is the requirement to remove body
jewelry during MRI scans. The
issues Ior the healthcare workers are
projectile objects, burns, and MR
image artiIacts. The issues Ior a
pierced individual are potential hole-
closure and the awkwardness oI the
entire situation.
For the healthcare workers, it is
important to evaluate objects with
regard to saIety and compatibility
when an MRI scan is to be per-
Iormed. SaIety reIers to the poten-
tial Ior injury to the individual.
Compatibility implies the potential
Ior injury to the implant and/or the
potential source oI artiIacts.
Potential sources oI concern are
related to one or more Iields in the
MR environment. These Iields
include the static magnetic Iield, the
RF (radio Irequency) electromagnet-
ic Iield, and the gradient (time-vary-
ing) magnetic Iields. The interaction
between an implant and the static
magnetic Iield oI a MR system
includes attraction or deIlection, and
torque. The eIIect on Ierromagnetic
materials exposed to static magnetic
Iields can range Irom signiIicant pro-
jectile motion to modiIications in the
orientation oI the object.
The RF electromagnetic Iields can
cause a temperature increase in the
object, leading to burns oI the sur-
rounding tissues. This occurs when
the anatomical area that contains the
object is exposed to the Iields Irom
the transmitting RF coil. Multiple
180-degree RF pulses can produce
high levels oI RF energy deposition
in the body. As the Iield strength oI
the MR system increases, the RF
power deposited in the body increas-
es. The potential Ior heating is due to
the type oI metal, and to the RF Iields
being concentrated at the area.
For an individual with body pierc-
ing, the main issue is the metal con-
tent oI the jewelry. Studies have
been perIormed on various types oI
stainless steel, titanium, and titanium
alloys. One particular study evaluat-
ed the diIIerence between type 304
and type 316L stainless steel (SS).
The process oI 'cold work any
mechanical deIormation at room
temperature - increases the tensile
strength Ior both type 304 SS and
316L SS. In addition, the application
oI cold work may increase the mag-
netic permeability oI nonmagnetic
stainless steel. The resulting perme-
ability is dependent upon metal com-
position and the amount oI cold
work. Cold working can transIorm a
nonmagnetic object to a magnetic
structure. Minimal mechanical
deIormation oI Type 304 SS increas-
es the Ierromagnetic qualities up to
62, and can produce large artiIacts
on the MRI scan. For type 316L SS
the amount oI magnetic changes pro-
duced by the cold-working process
was 0. No magnetic Iield attraction
or MR image distortion occurred as a
result oI cold working. This study
concluded that manuIacturing deIor-
mation and/or manipulation oI type
316L SS should not produce Ierro-
magnetism. As such, metallic bio-
implants made Irom ASTM surgical
implant-grade 316L SS should not be
attracted to a 1.5 static magnetic
Iield, nor produce signiIicant arti-
Iacts during an MRI scan. For type
316L SS objects, the higher alloy
content, particularly nickel, stabilizes
the nonmagnetic properties.
Similar studies have been per-
Iormed to evaluate the magnetic
properties oI metallic aneurysmal
clips in an MR system. Non-Ierro-
magnetic materials such as titanium
or titanium alloys are saIe Ior
patients undergoing MR procedures.
ThereIore, Ior pierced individuals
wearing body jewelry made Irom
titanium, titanium alloys and surgical
implant-grade 316LSS, body jewelry
removal Ior an MRI scan should not
be an issue oI contention unless the
jewelry is directly in the area to be
examined.
ReIerences:
1. A. M. Sawyer-Glover, F.G.
Shellock, Pre-MRI Procedure Screening:
Recommendations and SaIety
Considerations Ior Biomedical Implants
and Devices, J. Magnetic Resonance
Imaging, 12: 92-106 (2000).
2. L. P. Bendel, F. G. Shellock, M.
Steckel, The EIIect oI Mechanical
DeIormation on Magnetic DeIormation
on Magnetic Properties and MRI
ArtiIacts oI Type 304 and Type 316L
Stainless Steel, J. Magnetic Resonance
Imaging, 7 (6): 1170-1173.
3. F. G. Shellock, E. Kanal, Aneurysm
Clips: Evaluation oI MR Imaging
ArtiIacts at 1.5 T, Radiology, 209(2):
563-566 (November 1998).
4. F. G. Shellock, J. V. Crues,
Aneurysm Clips: Assessment oI
Magnetic Field Interaction Associated
with a 0.2-T Extremity MR System,
Radiology, 208(2): 407-409 (August
1998).
4
!"#$ &'()*'+, -+# ./0 1*-+2
Dr. Jack Ward

You might also like