Surgeon Survey Shows No Adverse Events With MRI in Patients With Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods (MCGRs)

Clinical compatibility of magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic intramedullary nails: a feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a magnetic intramedullary lengthening nail in place is contraindicated per the manufacturer due to the concern of implant activation and migration. A prior in vitro study did not confirm these complications only noting that a 3.0 T MRI weakened the internal magnet. Therefore, a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an MRI with a magnetic nail in place was performed to determine if any adverse effects occurred in the clinical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent an MRI with a magnetic lengthening nail in place was performed. The time spent being imaged in the MRI, number of times the patient entered the MRI suite, and the images obtained were recorded. Radiographs were performed before and after the MRI to determine if any hardware complications occurred. The patients were monitored for any adverse symptoms while they were in the suite.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients with 13 nails were identified. Two patients underwent imaging with a 3.0 T MRI while the remaining 10 underwent imaging with a 1.5 T MRI. Each patient entered the MRI suite 2.1 times and spent an average of 84.7 min being imaged in the MRI (range 21-494). No patients noted any adverse symptoms related to the nail while in the suite and no hardware complications were identified.

CONCLUSION

MRI appears to be safe with a magnetic nail in place and did not result in any complications. Given the manufacturer's recommendations, informed consent should be obtained prior to an MRI being performed and a 3.0 T MRI should be avoided when possible if further activation of the nail is required.

Early-Onset Spinal Deformity in Neurofibromatosis Type 1: Natural History, Treatment, and Imaging Surveillance

»

Early-onset scoliosis (EOS) or kyphosis is common in patients with neurofibromatosis (NF) and is characterized by rapid progression of deformity.

»

Traditional growing rods provide good functional and deformity outcomes in patients with NF and EOS; magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs) also provide good deformity correction, although high rates of revision have been reported after their use.

»

Among patients with NF type 1 (NF1), morphologic characteristics of the spinal deformity are different in those with paraspinal neurofibromas than in those without paraspinal tumors.

»

Patients with NF1 are at low risk for developing malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors during childhood (<1%) and their lifetime (8% to 12%), and routine imaging surveillance for malignancy in the absence of symptoms should be clinically directed.

»

Further investigation is needed to standardize screening for EOS in children with NF1 and to develop guidelines for ideal imaging modalities, including their frequency and a timeline.

Current status of the magnetically controlled growing rod in treatment of early-onset scoliosis: What we know after a decade of experience

The magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) has had approximately 10 years of clinical experience worldwide. Clinical effectiveness to control early-onset scoliosis is consistent even at final surgery. MCGRs have significantly lower relative percentage of infection or wound complications as compared to traditional growing rods. Most common complications include foundation failure and failure of distraction. Contouring of the rod especially at the proximal segment while accommodating for the straight actuator remains a difficult task and its failure may lead to proximal junctional kyphosis. Unique complications of MCGR include clunking, temporary diminishing distraction gains, and metallosis. Temporary reductions in distraction gains are observed as the MCGR lengthens but return to normal baseline distraction gains after rod exchange. Lack of standardization for rod configuration, distraction strategies and decisions of whether to keep the rods in situ, remove without fusion surgery or to perform spinal fusion at skeletal maturity will require further study.

MRI-related FDA adverse event reports: A 10-yr review

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of the types of adverse events reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) for magnetic resonance (MR) systems over a 10-yr period.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently reviewed adverse events reported to FDA for MR systems from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017 and manually categorized events into eight event types. Thermal events were further subcategorized by probable cause. Objects that became projectiles were also categorized.

RESULTS

FDA received 1568 adverse event reports for MR systems between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2017. This analysis included 1548 reports. Thermal events were the most commonly reported serious injury (59% of analyzed reports). Mechanical events - defined as slips, falls, crush injuries, broken bones, and cuts; musculoskeletal injuries from lifting or movement of the device - (11%), projectile events (9%), and acoustic events (6%) were also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events related to MR systems consistent with the known hazards of the MR environment continue to be reported to FDA. Increased awareness of the types of adverse events occurring for MR imaging systems is important for prevention.