Analysis, comparison and representation of occupational exposure to a static magnetic field in a 3-T MRI site

Hartwig, Valentina; Biagini, C; Marchi, Daniele De; Flori, Alessandra; Gabellieri, Chiara; Virgili, Giorgio; Vero, Luca Fabiano Ferrante; Landini, Luigi; Vanello, Nicola; Giovannetti, Giulio

doi:10.1080/10803548.2020.1738114

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Exposure assessment using a personal measurement system, such as dosimeters, has some technical and ethical limitations mainly due to covering the real working shift which includes work with patients. The large variability among patient examinations causes that the parameters measured in any work scenario have only limited representation of the real situation [33]. Due to this wide variability, the direct comparison of results from different studies completed by adopting different assessment strategies is difficult, or often not possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…patient positioning and removal, system verification test, calibration, hardware tests, …). This implies a very large variability in the dosimetric parameters with complications to perform a rigorous exposure assessment, health surveillance, and epidemiological studies about chronic exposure [3,33]. For this reason, one of the first suggestions regards an exposure categorization for the different professions working with MRI equipment, that could be based, for example, on the nature of the fields they are exposed to, the time that they are exposed, and the procedures that they perform.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The unperturbed field in the MRI environment can be determined by using the isogauss line maps provided by the scanner manufacturers [28,29], or by direct measurements using commercial survey meters [30][31][32][33][34].…”

Section: Exposure Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Personal measurements can be conducted using time recording systems, often referred to as "dosimeters" which are generally worn by the workers in a pocket or fixed by an elastic strap around the breast, and measure the instantaneous value of B [37][38][39][40][41][42]. The new-generation personal dosimeter [43,44] are able to evaluate also the exposure to motion-induced TvMF during daily clinical practice [33,40,41,[45][46][47].…”

Section: Exposure Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance environment: an update on regulation, exposure assessment techniques, health risk evaluation, and surveillance

Hartwig

Virgili²,

Mattei³

et al. 2021

Med Biol Eng Comput

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is one of the most-used diagnostic imaging methods worldwide. There are ∼50,000 MRI scanners worldwide each of which involves a minimum of five workers from different disciplines who spend their working days around MRI scanners. This review analyses the state-of-art of literature about the several aspects of the occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in MRI: regulations, literature studies on biological effects, and health surveillance are addressed here in detail, along with a summary of the main approaches for exposure assessment. The original research papers published from 2013 to 2021 in international peer-reviewed journals, in the English language, are analysed, together with documents published by legislative bodies. The key points for each topic are identified and described together with useful tips for precise safeguarding of MRI operators, in terms of exposure assessment, studies on biological effects, and health surveillance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Exposure Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Exposure Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance environment: an update on regulation, exposure assessment techniques, health risk evaluation, and surveillance

Hartwig

Virgili²,

Mattei³

et al. 2021

Med Biol Eng Comput

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 9 The static magnetic field hazards include signs of transient sensory induction, which mainly produces negative interaction between equipment and human tissue. 10 The risk associated with the RF involves tissue heating and specific absorption rate (SAR) problems. Concerning time-varying gradients, the induced current may cause peripheral nerve stimulation, impression of implanted medical devices, and acoustic noise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MRI Safety Practice Observations in MRI Facilities Within the Kingdom of Jordan, Compared to the 2020 Manual on MR Safety of the American College of Radiology

Ayasrah¹

2022

MDER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The absence of ionizing radiation in MRI applications does not guarantee absolute safety. Implementing of safety guidelines can ensure high-quality practice in the clinical MRI with the minimum risk. For this purpose, this cross-section quantitative study conducted in Jordan Kingdom aimed to assess current MRI safety guidelines in comparison with those of 2020 Manual on MR Safety of the American College of Radiology (ACR). Patients and Methods A site observation study of 38 MRI units was undertaken in June 2021. A well-structured MRI safety questionnaire was the primary data collection method. Data were subjected to a descriptive statistics content analysis by the SPSS version 20. The results were analyzed to yield comprehensive discussions. Results A total of 38 MRI facilities in participated in this study with the responding rate of 44.7%. Patient screening areas and changing rooms were available in about 29% (11/38) of the MRI facilities. Most facilities (55%, 21/38) conducted verbal screening only whereas 21% implemented both written and verbal screening for their patients and companions in zone II, which was present in a percentage of 29% in the approached facilities. Meanwhile, only 13 (43.2%) of 38 facilities used handheld magnets for physical screening, 25 (65.8%) of MRI units did not use any kind of ferromagnetic metal detection systems. Three (7.9%) participating centers had MR-safe wheelchairs, ventilators, anesthesia machines, and stretchers. Most MRI facilities participating in this study (71%) had emergency preparedness plans for alternative power outages. Despite a relatively low number of participating centers having an emergency exit or code (26.3% and 10.5%, respectively), none of them performed practice drills for such scenarios. Conclusion Investing in new MR-safe equipment requires introducing ferromagnetic detecting systems. More research is needed to establish the degree of MRI professional’s safety-related education.

show abstract

Analysis of collected magnetic resonance imaging incidents in jordan

Ayasrah

2023

Materials Today: Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis, comparison and representation of occupational exposure to a static magnetic field in a 3-T MRI site

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance environment: an update on regulation, exposure assessment techniques, health risk evaluation, and surveillance

Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance environment: an update on regulation, exposure assessment techniques, health risk evaluation, and surveillance

MRI Safety Practice Observations in MRI Facilities Within the Kingdom of Jordan, Compared to the 2020 Manual on MR Safety of the American College of Radiology

Analysis of collected magnetic resonance imaging incidents in jordan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About