ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: Updates and critical information 2019.

The need for a guidance document on MR safe practices arose from a growing awareness of the MR environment's potential risks and adverse event reports involving patients, equipment, and personnel. Initially published in 2002, the American College of Radiology White Paper on MR Safety established de facto industry standards for safe and responsible practices in clinical and research MR environments. The most recent version addresses new sources of risk of adverse events, increases awareness of dynamic MR environments, and recommends that those responsible for MR medical director safety undergo annual MR safety training. With regular updates to these guidelines, the latest MR safety concerns can be accounted for to ensure a safer MR environment where dangers are minimized. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:331-338.

Safety Considerations of 7-T MRI in Clinical Practice.

Although 7-T MRI has recently received approval for use in clinical patient care, there are distinct safety issues associated with this relatively high magnetic field. Forces on metallic implants and radiofrequency power deposition and heating are safety considerations at 7 T. Patient bioeffects such as vertigo, dizziness, false feelings of motion, nausea, nystagmus, magnetophosphenes, and electrogustatory effects are more common and potentially more pronounced at 7 T than at lower field strengths. Herein the authors review safety issues associated with 7-T MRI. The rationale for safety concerns at this field strength are discussed as well as potential approaches to mitigate risk to patients and health care professionals.

MRI sport-specific pulley imaging.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to create a novel MRI methodology that employs sport-specific stress views for imaging finger pulley injuries in the evaluation of post-operative healing effectiveness. The goal is to measure the bone to tendon distance (BTD), which is the current standard for determining pulley injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The athlete was imaged in a crimp-grip stressed position to emulate sport-specific biomechanics. A Gradient Echo technique was modified to maximize the signal to noise ratio and minimize distortion near the bone and tendon, simplifying the determination of the BTD. RESULTS: A stress-crimped hand position is imaged in less than one half-minute to enable diagnostic visualization of a normal proximal phalanx' bone and tendon via measurement of their BTD. CONCLUSION: This novel stress methodology allows for sport-specific imaging, which is ideal for determining functional compromise of the hand's pulley mechanism. Surgical outcomes may be more sensitively compared when using stress views, and these comparisons may then direct optimal repair technique. Future studies will utilize this technique to attempt early-stage detection of pulley injuries prior to complete rupture.

Cutting Corners or a New Standard?: Increasing Scarcity of T1 Data Sets.

The technological innovation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is ongoing and necessitates recurring reevaluation of appropriateness standards. As evidenced by current standards, T1 data sets provide an essential role to musculoskeletal imaging. According to a recent survey, T1 data sets are increasingly underutilized. This article discusses common and less commonly recognized T1 data set utility. It is suggested that a single non-fat-suppressed T1 data set (in any plane) continues to be standard in routine MRI musculoskeletal imaging.

Standardized MR terminology and reporting of implants and devices as recommended by the American College of Radiology Subcommittee on MR Safety.

Considerable confusion exists among the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging user community as to how to determine whether a patient with a metal implanted device can be safely imaged in an MR imaging unit. Although there has been progress by the device manufacturers in specifying device behavior in a magnetic field, and some MR imaging manufacturers provide maps of the "spatial gradients," there remains significant confusion because of the lack of standardized terminology and reporting guidelines. The American College of Radiology, through its Subcommittee on MR Safety, has proposed standardized terminology that will contribute to greater safety and understanding for screening metal implants and/or devices prior to MR imaging.