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

Overview

Journal Korean J Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2013 May 22

PMID 23690707

Citations 8

Authors

Vanessa Berger-Kulemann

Henrik Einspieler

Nilouparak Hachemian

Daniela Prayer

Siegfried Trattnig

Michael Weber

Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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 copper-containing 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.

Citing Articles

An in-vivo study of the safety of copper-containing intrauterine devices in 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

Moy J, Landon M, Vigilante J, Lehmann B, DeChambeau A, Rohlfing F Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024; 49(12):4592-4599.

PMID: 39023566 PMC: 11522044. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04493-4.

Case series demonstrating in vivo MR safety of stainless steel (Chinese/Ring) IUDs.

Thomas S, Hindman N BJR Case Rep. 2022; 8(3):20210165.

PMID: 36101733 PMC: 9461733. DOI: 10.1259/bjrcr.20210165.

Risk assessment of copper-containing contraceptives: the impact for women with implanted intrauterine devices during clinical MRI and CT examinations.

Neumann W, Uhrig T, Malzacher M, Kossmann V, Schad L, Zoellner F Eur Radiol. 2018; 29(6):2812-2820.

PMID: 30456586 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5864-6.

Safety of intrauterine devices in MRI.

Bussmann S, Luechinger R, Froehlich J, von Weymarn C, Reischauer C, Koh D PLoS One. 2018; 13(10):e0204220.

PMID: 30300364 PMC: 6177157. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204220.

Contraception concerns, utilization and counseling needs of women with a history of breast cancer: a qualitative study.

Mody S, Panelli D, Hulugalle A, Su H, Gorman J Int J Womens Health. 2017; 9:507-512.

PMID: 28790868 PMC: 5531568. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S136120.

References

Michaely H, Attenberger U, Kramer H, Nael K, Reiser M, Schoenberg S . Abdominal and pelvic MR angiography. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007; 15(3):301-14, v-vi. DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2007.06.001. View

Craven I, Griffiths P, Hoggard N . Magnetic resonance imaging of epilepsy at 3 Tesla. Clin Radiol. 2011; 66(3):278-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.10.010. View

Stankiewicz J, Glanz B, Healy B, Arora A, Neema M, Benedict R . Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging. 2009; 21(2):e50-6. PMC: 3043123. DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-6569.2009.00449.x. View

Muhler M, Taupitz M . [How safe is magnetic resonance imaging in patients with contraceptive implants?]. Radiologe. 2005; 46(7):574-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00117-005-1212-3. View

Andersson K, Lindell K, Odlind V, Milsom I . Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception. 1998; 57(4):251-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(98)00029-8. View

Hess T, Stepanow B, Knopp M . Safety of intrauterine contraceptive devices during MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 1996; 6(1):66-8. DOI: 10.1007/BF00619957. View

Turok D, Gurtcheff S, Gibson K, Handley E, Simonsen S, Murphy P . Operative management of intrauterine device complications: a case series report. Contraception. 2010; 82(4):354-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.04.152. View

Peipert J, Zhao Q, Allsworth J, Petrosky E, Madden T, Eisenberg D . Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(5):1105-1113. PMC: 3548669. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821188ad. View

Rasheed S, Abdelmonem A . Complications among adolescents using copper intrauterine contraceptive devices. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011; 115(3):269-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.07.014. View

10.

Thonneau P, Almont T, Almont T . Contraceptive efficacy of intrauterine devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 198(3):248-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.10.787. View

11.

Taras A, Kaufman J . Laparoscopic retrieval of intrauterine device perforating the sigmoid colon. JSLS. 2011; 14(3):453-5. PMC: 3041052. DOI: 10.4293/108680810X12924466006684. View

12.

OBrien P, Kulier R, Helmerhorst F, Usher-Patel M, dArcangues C . Copper-containing, framed intrauterine devices for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Contraception. 2008; 77(5):318-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2007.12.011. View

13.

Harrison-Woolrych M, Ashton J, Coulter D . Uterine perforation on intrauterine device insertion: is the incidence higher than previously reported?. Contraception. 2003; 67(1):53-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00417-1. View

14.

Bauer J, 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. 2008; 29(1):132-40. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21625. View

15.

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. 1998; 58(4):201-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(98)00097-3. View

16.

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. 2007; 25(3):527-34. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20842. View

17.

Zieman M, Kanal E . Copper T 380A IUD and magnetic resonance imaging. Contraception. 2007; 75(2):93-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.07.016. View

18.

Caliskan E, Ozturk N, Dilbaz B, Dilbaz S . Analysis of risk factors associated with uterine perforation by intrauterine devices. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2003; 8(3):150-5. View

19.

Araujo F, Barbieri M, Guazzelli C, Lindsey P . The T 380A intrauterine device: a retrospective 5-year evaluation. Contraception. 2008; 78(6):474-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.07.006. View

20.

Peri N, Graham D, Levine D . Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices. J Ultrasound Med. 2007; 26(10):1389-401. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2007.26.10.1389. View