A numerical survey of motion-induced electric fields experienced by MRI operators

Metrology for MRI: the field you've never heard of

Quantitative MRI has been an active area of research for decades and has produced a huge range of approaches with enormous potential for patient benefit. In many cases, however, there are challenges with reproducibility which have hampered clinical translation. Quantitative MRI is a form of measurement and like any other form of measurement it requires a supporting metrological framework to be fully consistent and compatible with the international system of units. This means not just expressing results in terms of seconds, meters, etc., but demonstrating consistency to their internationally recognized definitions. Such a framework for MRI is not yet complete, but a considerable amount of work has been done internationally towards building one. This article describes the current state of the art for MRI metrology, including a detailed description of metrological principles and how they are relevant to fully quantitative MRI. It also undertakes a gap analysis of where we are versus where we need to be to support reproducibility in MRI. It focusses particularly on the role and activities of national measurement institutes across the globe, illustrating the genuinely international and collaborative nature of the field.

Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields from medical sources

High exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF) can occur near certain medical devices in the hospital environment. A systematic assessment of medical occupational EMF exposure could help to clarify where more attention to occupational safety may be needed. This paper seeks to identify sources of high exposure for hospital workers and compare the published exposure data to occupational limits in the European Union. A systematic search for peer-reviewed publications was conducted via PubMed and Scopus databases. Relevant grey literature was collected via a web search. For each publication, the highest measured magnetic flux density or internal electric field strength per device and main frequency component was extracted. For low frequency fields, high action levels may be exceeded for magnetic stimulation, MRI gradient fields and movement in MRI static fields. For radiofrequency fields, the action levels may be exceeded near devices for diathermy, electrosurgery and hyperthermia and in the radiofrequency field inside MRI scanners. The exposure limit values for internal electric field may be exceeded for MRI and magnetic stimulation. For MRI and magnetic stimulation, practical measures can limit worker exposure. For diathermy, electrosurgery and hyperthermia, additional calculations are necessary to determine if SAR limits may be exceeded in some scenarios.

Occupational exposure in MR facilities due to movements in the static magnetic field

PURPOSE

The exposure of operators moving in the static field of magnetic resonance (MR) facilities was assessed through measurements of the magnetic flux density, which is experienced as variable in time because of the movement. Collected data were processed to allow the comparison with most recent and authoritative safety standards.

METHODS

Measurements of the experienced magnetic flux density B were performed using a probe worn by volunteers moving in MR environments. A total of 55 datasets were acquired nearby a 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T whole body scanners. Three different metrics were applied: the maximum intensity of B, to be compared with 2013/35/EU Directive exposure limit values for static fields; the maximum variation of the vector B on every 3s-interval, for comparison with the ICNIRP-2014 basic restriction aimed at preventing vertigo effects; two weighted-peak indices (for "sensory" and "health" effects: SENS-WP, HLTH-WP), assessing compliance with ICNIRP-2014 and EU Directive recommendations intended to prevent stimulation effects.

RESULTS

Peak values of |B| were greater than 2 T in nine of the 55 datasets. All the datasets at 1.5 T and 3 T were compliant with the limit for vertigo effects, whereas six datasets at 7 T turned out to be noncompliant. At 7 T, all 36 datasets were noncompliant for the SENS-WP index and 26 datasets even for the HLTH-WP one.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrate that compliance with EU Directive limits for static fields does not guarantee compliance with ICNIRP-2014 reference levels and clearly show that movements in the static field could be the key component of the occupational exposure to EMF in MR facilities.

Assessment of exposure to MRI motion-induced fields based on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to conduct an exposure assessment for workers moving through the stray stationary field of common MRI scanners, performed according to the recent International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, which aim at avoiding annoying sensory effects.

THEORY AND METHODS

The analysis was performed through numerical simulations, using a high-resolution anatomical model that moved along realistic trajectories in proximity to a tubular and open MRI scanner. Both dosimetric indexes indicated by ICNIRP (maximum variation of the magnetic flux density vector and exposure index for the motion-induced electric field) were computed for three statures of the human model.

RESULTS

A total of 51 exposure situations were analyzed. None of them exceeded the limit for the maximum variation of the magnetic flux density, whereas some critical cases were found when computing the induced electric field. In the latter case, the exposure indexes computed via Fourier transform and through an equivalent filter result to be consistent.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest the adoption of some simple precautionary rules, useful when sensory effects experienced by an operator could reflect upon the patient's safety. Moreover, some open issues regarding the quantification of motion-induced fields are highlighted, putting in evidence the need for clarification at standardization level. Magn Reson Med 76:1291-1300, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.