Subjective Symptoms in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Personnel: A Multi-Center Study in Italy

Bravo, Giulia; Modenese, Alberto; Arcangeli, Giulio; Bertoldi, Chiara; Camisa, Vincenzo; Corona, Gianluca; Giglioli, S; Ligabue, Guido; Moccaldi, R; Mucci, Nicola; Muscatello, Martina; Venturelli, Irene; Vimercati, Luigi; Zaffina, Salvatore; Zanotti, Giulio; Gobba, Fabriziomaria

doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.699675

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This exposure leads to the onset of transient symptoms. Dizziness, vertigo, visual disturbances, nystagmus, and metallic taste were the most frequently reported symptoms induced by worker movements in the fringe field [4]. Many studies highlighted the occurrence of transient symptoms, often defined as sensory effects [5]- [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Exposure to Spatially Varying Magnetic Fields in MRI Environments: Modeling Analysis for Simulation Tools

Hartwig,

Cianfaglione,

Campanella

et al. 2024

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a non-invasive diagnostic technique widely used in medicine with more than 60 million exams per year performed worldwide. MRI personnel are always exposed to static and spatially heterogeneous magnetic fields (fringe or stray fields) and motion-induced time-varying magnetic fields during the working day. This kind of exposure can evoke vertigo and other sensory perceptions such as nausea, visual sensations, and a metallic taste which are not considered hazardous per se, but can be disturbing and may impair working ability. Up to now, no standardized procedures have been available in the literature for the assessment of occupational exposure in MRI environment. The goal of this paper is to give some indications about the analytical models underlying the develop of digital tool for occupational exposure assessment in MRI environments, to have easy but interactive educational tools, for educating MRI staff to avoid higher risk conditions, and draw up best practices. Analysis of the models for the estimation of the magnetic field spatial distribution and for the representation of the workers movements is described and finally some recommendations for an accurate methodology to use in simulation tools for exposure assessment are given.INDEX TERMS MRI safety, occupational exposure, static magnetic field, time-varying magnetic field, induced electric field, human movements

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Exposure to Spatially Varying Magnetic Fields in MRI Environments: Modeling Analysis for Simulation Tools

Hartwig,

Cianfaglione,

Campanella

et al. 2024

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the currents are strong enough, they can cause effects on the central nervous system (CNS) and stimulate peripheral nerves. Recent studies have reported transient symptoms induced by workers' movements [12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational Exposure Assessment of the Static Magnetic Field Generated by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: A Case Study

Hartwig

Sansotta

Morelli

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance (MR) systems are used in academic research laboratories and industrial research fields, besides representing one of the most important imaging modalities in clinical radiology. This technology does not use ionizing radiation, but it cannot be considered without risks. These risks are associated with the working principle of the technique, which mainly involves static magnetic fields that continuously increase—namely, the radiofrequency (RF) field and spatial magnetic field gradient. To prevent electromagnetic hazards, the EU and ICNIRP have defined workers’ exposure limits. Several studies that assess health risks for workers and patients of diagnostic MR are reported in the literature, but data on workers’ risk evaluation using nuclear MR (NMR) spectroscopy are very poor. Therefore, the aim of this research is the risk assessment of an NMR environment, paying particular attention to workers with active implantable medical devices (AIMDs). Our perspective study consisted of the measurement of the static magnetic field around a 300 MHz (7 T) NMR research spectrometer and the computation of the electric field induced by the movements of an operator. None of the calculated exposure parameters exceeded the threshold limits imposed by legislation for protection against short-term effects of acute occupational exposure, but our results revealed that the level of exposure exceeded the action level threshold limit for workers with AIMD during the execution of tasks requiring the closest proximity to the spectrometer. Moreover, the strong dependence of the induced electric field results from the walking speed models is shown. This case study represents a snapshot of the NMR risk assessment with the specific goal to increase the interest in the safety of NMR environments.

show abstract

Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We explored the prevalence of health complaints subjectively associated with static magnetic field (SMF) and acoustic noise exposure among MR radiographers in Sweden, using CT radiographers as a control group. Additionally, we explored radiographers’ use of strategies to mitigate adverse health effects. Methods A cross-sectional survey was sent to all hospitals with MR units in Sweden. MR and/or CT personnel reported prevalence and attribution of symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, illusion of movement, ringing sensations/tinnitus, headache, unusual drowsiness/tiredness, forgetfulness, difficulties concentrating, and difficulties sleeping) within the last year. We used logistic regression to test associations between sex, age, stress, SMF strength, working hours, and symptom prevalence. Data regarding hearing function, work-environmental noise, and strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms were also analysed. Results In total, 529 out of 546 respondents from 86 hospitals were eligible for participation. A ≥ 20 working hours/week/modality cut-off rendered 342 participants grouped into CT (n = 75), MR (n = 121), or mixed personnel (n = 146). No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between groups. Working at ≥ 3T increased SMF-associated symptoms as compared with working at ≤ 1.5T (OR: 2.03, CI95: 1.05–3.93). Stress was a significant confounder. Work-related noise was rated as more troublesome by CT than MR personnel (p < 0.01). MR personnel tended to use more strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms. Conclusion No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. However, working at 3T increased the risk of SMF symptoms, and stress increased adverse health effects. Noise nuisance was considered more problematic by CT than MR personnel. Key Points • No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. • Working at ≥ 3 T doubled the odds of experiencing SMF symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, and/or illusion of movement) as compared to working exclusively at ≤ 1.5 T. • Work-related acoustic noise was less well mitigated and was rated as more troublesome by CT personnel than by MR personnel.

show abstract

Subjective Symptoms in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Personnel: A Multi-Center Study in Italy

Cited by 4 publications

References 28 publications

Assessment of Exposure to Spatially Varying Magnetic Fields in MRI Environments: Modeling Analysis for Simulation Tools

Assessment of Exposure to Spatially Varying Magnetic Fields in MRI Environments: Modeling Analysis for Simulation Tools

Occupational Exposure Assessment of the Static Magnetic Field Generated by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: A Case Study

Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About