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

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.

Maintaining Image Quality While Reducing Acoustic Noise and Switched Gradient Field Exposure During Lumbar MRI.

BACKGROUND: MR-generated acoustic noise can contribute to patient discomfort and potentially be harmful. One way to reduce this noise is by altering the gradient output and/or waveform using software optimization. Such modifications might influence image quality and switched gradient field exposure, and different techniques appear to affect sound pressure levels (SPLs) to various degrees. PURPOSE: To evaluate SPLs, image quality, switched gradient field exposure, and participants' perceived noise levels during two different acoustic noise reduction (ANR) techniques, Quiet Suite (QS) and Whisper Mode (WM), and to compare them with conventional T2-weighted turbo spin echo (T2W TSE) of the lumbar spine. DESIGN: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Forty adults referred for lumbar MRI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Conventional T2W TSE, T2W TSE with QS, and T2W TSE with WM were acquired at 1.5 T. ASSESSMENT: Peak SPL (A-weighted decibels, dBA), perceived noise levels (Borg CR10®-scale), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), three radiologists' qualitative assessments in image quality on an ordinal scale 1-4, switched gradient field exposure (% general public), and gradient currents were measured. Interobserver reliability was reported as percentage agreement. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeated measures ANOVA, Friedman's ANOVA, and Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test for acoustic noise measurements and image quality assessments. RESULTS: Mean peak SPLs were 89.9 dBA, 74.3 dBA, and 78.8 dBA for conventional, QS, and WM, respectively (P < 0.05). Participants perceived QS as the quietest and conventional as the loudest sequence (P < 0.05). No qualitative differences in image quality were seen (P > 0.05), although QS showed significantly improved SNR and CNR (P < 0.05). Switched gradient field exposure was reduced by 66% and 48% for QS and WM, respectively. DATA CONCLUSION: Without degrading image quality, both QS and WM are viable ANR techniques in lumbar T2W TSE. QS provided the lowest SPL, the lowest gradient field exposure and was perceived as the most silent among the three sequences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 5.