Request that FDA require MR manufacturers to provide 3D RF field plots
143 Comments
J
Joost Kuijer
5 years ago
The Netherlands
A
Angela Webber
6 years ago
New Zealand
M
MUHAMMAD ANSARI
6 years ago
Please help to make MRI safe for patients and MRI personals.
L
Luca Zilberti
6 years ago
Italy
L
Lorenza Clausen
6 years ago
California, United States
A
Annette Weekes-Holder
6 years ago
Canada
A
Aiping Yao
6 years ago
Switzerland
E
Emanuel Kanal
· petition starter
6 years ago
As the originator of this petition, I just wanted to explain: I completely concur that it is the 3D induced E field information/plots that we are ideally interested in if we are to prevent thermal injuries in patients (especially with electrically conductive implants). HOWEVER, with different positioning capabilities (head first, feet first, decubitus versus supine versus prone, etc.) and different centering capabilities and with massively different potential body morphs I do not believe it is realistic to ask for E field plots from manufacturers. Further, the legal liability of their providing such E-field plots would kill this petition before it could even launch, as no reasonable MR manufacturer would take the legal risk of attempting to definitively define induced E-field plots for patient care scenarios, let alone for patients with electrically conductive implants. This is why I specifically asked for B1 field plot data. That would at least help us, the knowledgeable end users, to OURSELVES very roughly approximate likely induced E-field pathways and exposure levels so that we can make far more reasonable and reasoned risk assessment based decisions for patients with implants, morbidly obese patients, etc. I hope this helps clarify why the petition is worded as it is.
L
Lukas Winter
6 years ago
Featured
Berlin, Germany
Agree with previous comments. Full field Information needed (complex 3D vector of E and H/B field in 3D volume)
M
Mark Hofman
6 years ago
Featured
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
I agree with the need for more information. But on the issue of heating one needs the map of the E1 field, instead of B1. The E-field determines the RF induced heating, and close to the RF coil, in the near-field, is the E1 field more inhomogenous than the B1 field. Thus with the B1 field map essential information is still missing.
J
James Whittaker
6 years ago
New Zealand
A
Angela Borella
6 years ago
Australia
S
Stefani Szalay-Domm
6 years ago
New York
P
Paula Ciccozzi
6 years ago
Australia
D
Deborah Spence
6 years ago
B1 plus field distributions will help with implants
L
Lyubov Ostrovska
6 years ago
Systematic validation of the MRI, X-Ray, and UltraSound equipment in the clinical settings, as well as evaluation of exposure effect on human tissues and organism, would be helpful.
J
Judi Patterson
6 years ago
Cleveland, OH
RT (R N CT MR) MRSO (MRSC)
F
Filiz Yetisir
6 years ago
Featured
It would be great to have not only the 3D distribution of the fields but also the safety margins implemented by the vendors, if any, to understand (as we do EM simulations ourselves) the actual SAR values that occur in the scanner.
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Please help to make MRI safe for patients and MRI personals.
Italy
California, United States
Canada
Switzerland
As the originator of this petition, I just wanted to explain: I completely concur that it is the 3D induced E field information/plots that we are ideally interested in if we are to prevent thermal injuries in patients (especially with electrically conductive implants). HOWEVER, with different positioning capabilities (head first, feet first, decubitus versus supine versus prone, etc.) and different centering capabilities and with massively different potential body morphs I do not believe it is realistic to ask for E field plots from manufacturers. Further, the legal liability of their providing such E-field plots would kill this petition before it could even launch, as no reasonable MR manufacturer would take the legal risk of attempting to definitively define induced E-field plots for patient care scenarios, let alone for patients with electrically conductive implants. This is why I specifically asked for B1 field plot data. That would at least help us, the knowledgeable end users, to OURSELVES very roughly approximate likely induced E-field pathways and exposure levels so that we can make far more reasonable and reasoned risk assessment based decisions for patients with implants, morbidly obese patients, etc. I hope this helps clarify why the petition is worded as it is.
Berlin, Germany Agree with previous comments. Full field Information needed (complex 3D vector of E and H/B field in 3D volume)
Amsterdam, the Netherlands I agree with the need for more information. But on the issue of heating one needs the map of the E1 field, instead of B1. The E-field determines the RF induced heating, and close to the RF coil, in the near-field, is the E1 field more inhomogenous than the B1 field. Thus with the B1 field map essential information is still missing.
New Zealand
Australia
New York
Australia
B1 plus field distributions will help with implants
Systematic validation of the MRI, X-Ray, and UltraSound equipment in the clinical settings, as well as evaluation of exposure effect on human tissues and organism, would be helpful.
Cleveland, OH RT (R N CT MR) MRSO (MRSC)
It would be great to have not only the 3D distribution of the fields but also the safety margins implemented by the vendors, if any, to understand (as we do EM simulations ourselves) the actual SAR values that occur in the scanner.
Prof. Dr. Olaf Dietrich, Munich
I agree with the comments made by Wyger Brink