# MRI Safety Considerations for Permanent Magnet Implants in Muscle

## TL;DR

This study shows that small permanent magnets implanted in muscle can safely undergo MRI scans up to 1.5T without moving or losing magnetism.

## Contribution

The study evaluates the MRI safety of intramuscular permanent magnets used for prosthetic control, which had not been previously assessed.

## Key findings

- Magnets showed no significant migration after MRI exposure at 0.55T and 1.5T.
- Maximum demagnetization was 13.5% at 1.5T, with negligible image artifacts.
- Fibrotic capsules around magnets remained intact, indicating stable implantation.

## Abstract

Permanent magnet implants are used with several medical and assistive devices, such as cochlear implants, dental attachments, and prosthetic control, but raise caution for MR imaging. Previous work has evaluated several magnet implants for position and magnetization stability, as well as for image artifacts under MRI. Yet, the intramuscular magnets used for prosthetic control still require evaluation for potential MRI conditionality.

To investigate the position and magnetization stability of and image artifacts from 3‐mm‐diameter spherical permanent magnets (B
r = 1.393 T, H
ci = 1.637 MA/m) implanted within muscle.

Prospective longitudinal study.

Porcine; one animal, eight muscles.

0.55‐T, 1.5‐T/SE, GRE.

Permanent magnets and nonmagnetic controls were implanted into eight muscles and exposed to 1.5‐T MRI 36 days post‐implantation. All sites were examined histologically for evidence of implant migration (acute fibrotic response or fibrotic capsule disruption). Benchtop studies evaluated worst‐case demagnetization and image artifacts (artifact radius minus implant radius). The primary measure of position stability was histological examination interpreting characteristics of progressive skeletal muscle healing. Secondary position stability analysis was performed via CT imaging.

Unpaired one‐sided sign test with a significance level of 0.05. Demagnetization and imaging artifacts were summarized as maximums.

Fibrotic capsules were similarly intact at permanent magnet and control sites (fibrotic capsule thicknesses: 20–550 μm [magnets], 20–220 μm [controls]). No effect of MRI exposure on implant migration was observed via secondary analysis (p = 0.965 [0.55‐T], p = 0.996 [1.5‐T]). Maximum demagnetization was 2.1% under 0.55‐T exposure and 13.5% under 1.5‐T exposure, and maximum image artifact was 71 mm at both imaging strengths.

The permanent magnet implants used in this study were resistant to migration and substantial demagnetization under 0.55‐T and 1.5‐T MRI exposure and resulted in negligible image artifacts for critical organ imaging, suggesting that the presence of these implants does not preclude a patient from receiving MR imaging up to 1.5T.

N/A.

Stage 5: Improvements in patient care.

Some people have magnets implanted in their bodies. Implanted magnets let people control prostheses, let people attach things to themselves, and let doctors control things inside the body. But can a person be imaged by MRI if they have a magnetic implants? The authors checked to see if sesame‐seed‐sized neodymium magnets in muscle could tolerate a 1.5‐T MRI, and they found that the magnets remained magnetized and did not move. These results mean that people with implanted magnets can still benefit from up to 1.5‐T MRI.