Magnetic resonance imaging: absence of in vitro cytogenetic damage.

Wolff, S; James, T L; Young, Geoffrey; Margulis, A R; Bodycote, Judy; Afzal, Veena

doi:10.1148/radiology.155.1.4038809

Cited by 37 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Preinformation that, to our present knowledge MRI causes no harm to the fetus [16,17,18,19,20,21,31,32,33,34], failed to dispel fear in five pregnant women (33%). Referring clinicians and radiologists must therefore take serious account of this perfectly comprehensible reaction in their practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Pelvimetry and patient acceptability compared between open 0.5-T and closed 1.5-T MR systems

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

time was double in the open system (7:52±1:47 vs 3:12±1:20 min). Poor image quality in the open system prevented assessment of interspinous and intertuberous diameters in one woman and all measurements in another, both pregnant, with abdominal circumferences >120 cm. The open system was much more acceptable in terms of claustrophobia and confinement (both p<0.01). Claustrophobia interrupted one closed examination. Thirty-three percent of pregnant women in both systems reported fear of fetal harm. Sixty percent of all women preferred the open system, 7% the closed system, and 33% had no preference. Limits of agreement of 3-5% from the mean for all diameters confirmed good pelvimetric reproducibility. Women's preference for open-system MR pelvimetry is feasible with abdominal circumferences ≤120 cm. AbstractOur objective was to compare maternal pelvimetry and patient acceptability between open low-field (0.5-T) and closed 1.5-T MR systems. Thirty women referred for pelvimetry (pregnant: n=15) were scanned twice in the supine position, once in the vertical open system and once in the closed system. Each patient completed a comfort and acceptability questionnaire. Pelvimetric and questionnaire data were compared between systems. Total scan

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Pelvimetry and patient acceptability compared between open 0.5-T and closed 1.5-T MR systems

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE‐MRA) is well suited for evaluating pediatric patients with cardiovascular disorders . The detailed delineation of vascular anatomy provided by CE‐MRA is important for planning surgery or catheter interventions .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four‐dimensional, multiphase, steady‐state imaging with contrast enhancement (MUSIC) in the heart: A feasibility study in children

Han

Rapacchi

Khan

et al. 2014

Magnetic Resonance in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, cell phone radiation can alter protooncogene activity (Ivaschuk et al, 1997;Goswami et al, 1999). However, a similar number of studies have failed to detect obvious clastogenic effects following microwave irradiation of isolated animal cells in vitro (Alam et al, 1978;Lloyd et al, 1984Lloyd et al, , 1986Wolff et al, 1985;Meltz et al, 1987Meltz et al, , 1989Meltz et al, , 1990Kerbacher et al, 1990;Maes et al, 1997Maes et al, , 2001. Thus, there is still no conclusive answer as to whether exposure to microwaves is clastogenic, i.e., whether they can direct or indirectly increase the frequency of chromosomal aberrations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cytogenetic analysis of the effects of 2.5 and 10.5 GHz microwaves on human lymphocytes

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biological effects of microwaves on living organisms remain highly controversial. Although some reports have suggested that microwaves may be directly or indirectly genotoxic, a direct action is unlikely because the low energy of microwave photons makes them unable to cause single-strand breaks in DNA. In this work, we examined the possible clastogenic properties of microwaves (2.5 and 10.5 GHz) on blood lymphocytes in vitro by monitoring the frequency of chromosomal aberrations. We also investigated whether blood cells showed increased radiosensitivity or radioresistance when pretreated with the microwaves and then irradiated with gamma radiation. There was no significant difference in the frequency of chromosomal aberrations between cells which had or had not been treated with microwaves. Control cells had a mean frequency of 0.013 aberrations per cell compared to 0.010 and 0.011 aberrations per cell in the microwave-exposed samples. Nor was there any alteration in the radiosensitivity of cells pretreated with microwaves. Gamma irradiated cells showed a mean frequency of 0.279 aberrations per cell compared to 0.343 and 0.310 aberrations per cell in samples pretreated with microwaves. However, cell mortality increased markedly after exposure to microwaves. The results suggest that microwaves do not interact directly or indirectly with chromosomes, although they may target other cell structures, such as cell membranes.

show abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging: absence of in vitro cytogenetic damage.

Cited by 37 publications

References 0 publications

Pelvimetry and patient acceptability compared between open 0.5-T and closed 1.5-T MR systems

Pelvimetry and patient acceptability compared between open 0.5-T and closed 1.5-T MR systems

Four‐dimensional, multiphase, steady‐state imaging with contrast enhancement (MUSIC) in the heart: A feasibility study in children

Cytogenetic analysis of the effects of 2.5 and 10.5 GHz microwaves on human lymphocytes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About