Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Magnetic Field Interactions of Copper-Containing Intrauterine Devices in 3.0-Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: In Vivo Study

  • Published : 2013.06.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: An ex vivo study found a copper-containing intrauterine device (IUD) to be safe for women undergoing an MRI examination at a 3.0-T field. No significant artifacts caused by the metallic implant were detected. However, there are still no in vivo data about these concerns. The aim of this study was to evaluate 3.0-T magnetic field interactions of coppercontaining IUDs in vivo. Materials and Methods: Magnetic field interactions and potential adverse events were evaluated in 33 women using a questionnaire-based telephone survey. Two experienced radiologists performed artifact evaluation on MR images of the pelvis. Results: Eighteen patients were eligible for the survey. One patient reported a dislocation of the IUD after the MR examination. All other patients had no signs of field interactions. No IUD-related artifacts were found. Conclusion: MRI at 3.0-T is possible for women with copper-containing IUDs. However, consulting a gynecologist to check the correct position of the IUD and exclude complications after an MR examination is highly recommended. High-quality clinical imaging of the female pelvis can be performed without a loss in image quality.

Keywords

References

  1. Peipert, JF, Zhao, Q, Allsworth, JE, Petrosky, E, Madden, T, Eisenberg, D,Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception, Obstet Gynecol, 117, 1, 1105-1113(2011) https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821188ad
  2. de Araujo, FF, Barbieri, M, Guazzelli, CA, Lindsey, PC,The T 380A intrauterine device: a retrospective 5-year evaluation, Contraception, 78, 2, 474-478(2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.07.006
  3. Thonneau, PF, Almont, T,Contraceptive efficacy of intrauterine devices, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 198, 3, 248-253(2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.10.787
  4. Farr, G, Amatya, R, Doh, A, Ekwempu, CC, Toppozada, M, Ruminjo, J,An evaluation of the copper-T 380A IUD's safety and efficacy at three African centers, Contraception, 53, 4, 293-298(1996) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(96)00063-7
  5. Reinprayoon, D, Gilmore, C, Farr, G, Amatya, R,Twelve-month comparative multicenter study of the TCu 380A and ML 250 intrauterine devices in Bangkok, Thailand, Contraception, 58, 5, 201-206(1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00097-3
  6. Suri, V, Aggarwal, N, Kaur, R, Chaudhary, N, Ray, P, Grover, A,Safety of intrauterine contraceptive device (copper T 200 B) in women with cardiac disease, Contraception, 78, 6, 315-318(2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.05.006
  7. Schwarz, EB, Hess, R, Trussell, J,Contraception for cancer survivors, J Gen Intern Med, 24, 7, S401-S406(2009) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1023-8
  8. Peri, N, Graham, D, Levine, D,Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices, J Ultrasound Med, 26, 8, 1389-1401(2007) https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2007.26.10.1389
  9. Craven, I, Griffiths, PD, Hoggard, N,Magnetic resonance imaging of epilepsy at 3 Tesla, Clin Radiol, 66, 9, 278-286(2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2010.10.010
  10. Stankiewicz, JM, Glanz, BI, Healy, BC, Arora, A, Neema, M, Benedict, RH,Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis, J Neuroimaging, 21, 10, e50-e56(2011) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6569.2009.00449.x
  11. Arizono, S, Isoda, H, Maetani, YS, Hirokawa, Y, Shimada, K, Nakamoto, Y,High spatial resolution 3D MR cholangiography with high sampling efficiency technique (SPACE): comparison of 3T vs. 1.5T, Eur J Radiol, 73, 11, 114-118(2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.08.003
  12. Kataoka, M, Kido, A, Koyama, T, Isoda, H, Umeoka, S, Tamai, K,MRI of the female pelvis at 3T compared to 1.5T: evaluation on high-resolution T2-weighted and HASTE images, J Magn Reson Imaging, 25, 12, 527-534(2007) https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20842
  13. Michaely, HJ, Attenberger, UI, Kramer, H, Nael, K, Reiser, MF, Schoenberg, SO,Abdominal and pelvic MR angiography, Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 15, 13, 301-314(2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2007.06.001
  14. Bauer, JS, Monetti, R, Krug, R, Matsuura, M, Mueller, D, Eckstein, F,Advances of 3T MR imaging in visualizing trabecular bone structure of the calcaneus are partially SNR-independent: analysis using simulated noise in relation to micro-CT, 1.5T MRI, and biomechanical strength, J Magn Reson Imaging, 29, 14, 132-140(2009) https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21625
  15. Pasquale, SA, Russer, TJ, Foldesy, R, Mezrich, RS,Lack of interaction between magnetic resonance imaging and the copper-T380A IUD, Contraception, 55, 15, 169-173(1997) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(97)00019-X
  16. Hess, T, Stepanow, B, Knopp, MV,Safety of intrauterine contraceptive devices during MR imaging, Eur Radiol, 6, 16, 66-68(1996) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00619957
  17. Kido, A, Togashi, K, Kataoka, ML, Nakai, A, Koyama, T, Fujii, S,Intrauterine devices and uterine peristalsis: evaluation with MRI, Magn Reson Imaging, 26, 17, 54-58(2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2007.06.001
  18. Muhler, M, Taupitz, M,[How safe is magnetic resonance imaging in patients with contraceptive implants?], Radiologe, 46, 18, 574-578(2006) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-005-1212-3
  19. Zieman, M, Kanal, E,Copper T 380A IUD and magnetic resonance imaging, Contraception, 75, 19, 93-95(2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.07.016
  20. Shellock FG. MRIsafety.com. http://www.mrisafety.com/list. asp/. Accessed August 29, 2012
  21. O'Brien, PA, Kulier, R, Helmerhorst, FM, Usher-Patel, M, d'Arcangues, C,Copper-containing, framed intrauterine devices for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, Contraception, 77, 21, 318-327(2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.12.011
  22. Rasheed, SM, Abdelmonem, AM,Complications among adolescents using copper intrauterine contraceptive devices, Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 115, 22, 269-272(2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.07.014
  23. Glass, T, Baker, T, Kauffman, RP,Migration of an intrauterine contraceptive device during the course of pregnancy: a case report, J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 16, 23, 81-83(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2008.09.579
  24. Andersson, K, Ryde-Blomqvist, E, Lindell, K, Odlind, V, Milsom, I,Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey, Contraception, 57, 24, 251-255(1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00029-8
  25. Markovitch, O, Klein, Z, Gidoni, Y, Holzinger, M, Beyth, Y,Extrauterine mislocated IUD: is surgical removal mandatory?, Contraception, 66, 25, 105-108(2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00327-X
  26. Turok, DK, Gurtcheff, SE, Gibson, K, Handley, E, Simonsen, S, Murphy, PA,Operative management of intrauterine device complications: a case series report, Contraception, 82, 26, 354-357(2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.04.152
  27. Taras, AR, Kaufman, JA,Laparoscopic retrieval of intrauterine device perforating the sigmoid colon, JSLS, 14, 27, 453-455(2010) https://doi.org/10.4293/108680810X12924466006684
  28. Caliskan, E, Ozt체rk, N, Dilbaz, BO, Dilbaz, S,Analysis of risk factors associated with uterine perforation by intrauterine devices, Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care, 8, 28, 150-155(2003) https://doi.org/10.1080/ejc.8.3.150.155
  29. Harrison-Woolrych, M, Ashton, J, Coulter, D,Uterine perforation on intrauterine device insertion: is the incidence higher than previously reported?, Contraception, 67, 29, 53-56(2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00417-1
  30. MagResource - MRI safety worldwide. http://www. magresource.com/. Accessed August 29, 2012

Cited by

  1. Sigmoid colocolic fistula caused by intrauterine device migration: a case report vol.8, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-1947-8-81
  2. Ultrasonography of intrauterine devices vol.34, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.15010
  3. Contraception concerns, utilization and counseling needs of women with a history of breast cancer: a qualitative study vol.9, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.2147/ijwh.s136120
  4. An Effectiveness of Radio Frequcncy(RF) Shielding Fibers and Customized RF Protective Clothing Applied to the Whole Body in Partial Area Imaging Working as a RF Absorber vol.27, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.31159/ksmrt.2017.27.2.45
  5. Safety of intrauterine devices in MRI vol.13, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204220
  6. Risk assessment of copper-containing contraceptives: the impact for women with implanted intrauterine devices during clinical MRI and CT examinations vol.29, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5864-6
  7. Surface Characterization of Fracture in Polylactic Acid vs. PLA + Particle (Cu, Al, Graphene) Insertions by 3D Fused Deposition Modeling Technology vol.11, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11060633