Radiology - Is an MRI Safe for Me?

Author

Is an MRI Safe for Me?

Zer0 Voltage

2006-06-25, 9:25 pm

Hello,

I've been told I need an MRI to confirm the presence and precise
location of a suspected glomus tumor in my right pinky fingertip.

I have two concerns:

1. Back in 1989 I had gallbladder surgery. Following that I had a torso
x-ray which showed numerous white lines. When I asked what they were,
the doctor said they were metal clips (or maybe he said metal staples)
left over from the surgery. I belive they were scattered over the area
below my chest and above (or at) my waist and I remember seeing a large
number of them. Unfortunately, the doctor has since died and the
hospital has no detailed records of what was done (since it was so long
ago).

2. During 1992 and 1993 I worked in a metal stamping plant and was
therefore exposed to lots of metal dust and fragments. From what I've
found on the web, supposedly this could remain in my eyes and present a
risk during an MRI.

I assume an x-ray of some sort could check for metal in my eyes and
would certainly show the metal left behind from my surgery, but I really
don't like the idea of that much radiation (especially in my skull and
torso) and know it couldn't tell anything about the type of metal it
finds anyway.

Are these reasons to avoid an MRI? My doctor said it "should" go fine,
but I've found lots of conflicting info and don't like the uncertainty.
I also have no insurance and that just makes any risks even more serious
for me.

Thanks for any info.

Ray Laughton

2006-06-26, 4:27 pm

Zer0 Voltage <zer0_voltage@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've been told I need an MRI to confirm the presence and precise
> location of a suspected glomus tumor in my right pinky fingertip.
>
> I have two concerns:
>
> 1. Back in 1989 I had gallbladder surgery. Following that I had a torso
> x-ray which showed numerous white lines. When I asked what they were,
> the doctor said they were metal clips (or maybe he said metal staples)
> left over from the surgery. I belive they were scattered over the area
> below my chest and above (or at) my waist and I remember seeing a large
> number of them. Unfortunately, the doctor has since died and the
> hospital has no detailed records of what was done (since it was so long
> ago).
>
> 2. During 1992 and 1993 I worked in a metal stamping plant and was
> therefore exposed to lots of metal dust and fragments. From what I've
> found on the web, supposedly this could remain in my eyes and present a
> risk during an MRI.
>
> I assume an x-ray of some sort could check for metal in my eyes and
> would certainly show the metal left behind from my surgery, but I really
> don't like the idea of that much radiation (especially in my skull and
> torso) and know it couldn't tell anything about the type of metal it
> finds anyway.
>
> Are these reasons to avoid an MRI? My doctor said it "should" go fine,
> but I've found lots of conflicting info and don't like the uncertainty.
> I also have no insurance and that just makes any risks even more serious
> for me.
>
> Thanks for any info.

If I were you I'd do an xray of the orbits, just to rule out any sizable
metal fragments in the eyes. You should know what metal you worked with,
if it was aluminium or some other non-magnetic metal you don't even need
the orbit xray. Dont worry about the op-clips in your abdomen.
If you are still unsure, there are small MRIs available for arms and
legs, they should offer even more protection as they have a weaker
magnetic field.

RL

Zer0 Voltage

2006-06-28, 2:28 am

In article <1hhjri0.1n957u0j4prswN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
rlaughton@invalid.com says...
> Zer0 Voltage <zer0_voltage@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If I were you I'd do an xray of the orbits, just to rule out any sizable
> metal fragments in the eyes. You should know what metal you worked with,
> if it was aluminium or some other non-magnetic metal you don't even need
> the orbit xray. Dont worry about the op-clips in your abdomen.
> If you are still unsure, there are small MRIs available for arms and
> legs, they should offer even more protection as they have a weaker
> magnetic field.
>
> RL
>

Thanks Ray. I think I'm just going to pass on the MRI and take my
chances. I'm just not comfortable with radiating my brain and I'm too
worried about internal injury from surgical clips moving around or
heating up (even if the chance is small). Neither my doctor nor the
radiology centers here knew of any small MRIs for extremities. They
won't even let me do an open MRI since they need the highest detail to
detect this kind of tumor. The tech said I would basically have to go
into one of the high power machines hand first with my hand up over my
head (such that my entire body wouldn't go into the chamber). That just
left me with images of the surgical clips shooting up into my lungs and
any metal particles in my eyes getting sucked up into my brain...

Ray Laughton

2006-06-28, 4:26 pm

Zer0 Voltage <zer0_voltage@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article rlaughton@invalid.com says...
>
> Thanks Ray. I think I'm just going to pass on the MRI and take my
> chances. I'm just not comfortable with radiating my brain and I'm too
> worried about internal injury from surgical clips moving around or
> heating up (even if the chance is small). Neither my doctor nor the
> radiology centers here knew of any small MRIs for extremities. They
> won't even let me do an open MRI since they need the highest detail to
> detect this kind of tumor. The tech said I would basically have to go
> into one of the high power machines hand first with my hand up over my
> head (such that my entire body wouldn't go into the chamber). That just
> left me with images of the surgical clips shooting up into my lungs and
> any metal particles in my eyes getting sucked up into my brain...
Its your decision, of course. The xray would produce a negligible rad.
dose. The problem is not the metal splitters going into the brain as its
well shielded from the eyes by the orbits, its the damage they could do
in the eyes themselves if they move. Concerning the small MRIs, I saw
them at conventions years ago. Heres an example, its not one I recall
though: http://www.esaote.com/products/MRI/...Q/products1.htm
The penalty paid for the low strength field is the not-so-great
resolution of the images.. Its all down to choices in the end.
RL

billsuggs@gmail.com

2006-07-03, 4:24 pm

MRI is "Magnetic Resonance Imaging". There is no radiation involved in
this type of exam.

Ray Laughton wrote:
> Zer0 Voltage <zer0_voltage@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Its your decision, of course. The xray would produce a negligible rad.
> dose. The problem is not the metal splitters going into the brain as its
> well shielded from the eyes by the orbits, its the damage they could do
> in the eyes themselves if they move. Concerning the small MRIs, I saw
> them at conventions years ago. Heres an example, its not one I recall
> though: http://www.esaote.com/products/MRI/...Q/products1.htm
> The penalty paid for the low strength field is the not-so-great
> resolution of the images.. Its all down to choices in the end.
> RL

GeoffS

2006-07-04, 4:25 pm

billsuggs@gmail.com wrote:
> MRI is "Magnetic Resonance Imaging". There is no radiation involved in
> this type of exam.

Correct [sort of], but there is ionizing radiation in the X-Ray used to
check for metal fragments.

Just for completeness, there *is* radio-frequency radiation involved in
an MRI exam. In fact, the exposure is carefully monitored to ensure
there is no biological damage (Google "MRI SAR" for more information).

Cheers,

Geoff S.

Salmon Egg

2006-07-04, 4:25 pm

On 7/3/06 2:16 PM, in article
1151961363.720678.258040@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "billsuggs@gmail.com"
<billsuggs@gmail.com> wrote:

> MRI is "Magnetic Resonance Imaging". There is no radiation involved in
> this type of exam.

Not strictly true. There is no IONIZING radiation because only radio
frequency radiation is used. Even that is not strictly true. At temperatures
near absolute zero, even radio radiation can disrupt bonding from extremely
weak electronic binding. But for all practical purposes--no ionizing
radiation.

While I am picking nits, getting hit over the head with a sledge hammer also
does not involve ionizing radiation.

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush

Salmon Egg

2006-07-06, 2:28 am

On 7/4/06 9:56 PM, in article 1hhzoop.4mwxwv1ntq4ziN%rlaughton@invalid.com,
"Ray Laughton" <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:

> <billsuggs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So?
> Did anyone say there was? :-/
>
> RL
>
>
I said that there was. Good old Hertzian waves. Just like x-rays but of
lower frequency. There just is no nuclear disintegration and detection
cannot register on quantum detectors. This means no ionization. Remember,
during the WWII there was a Radiation Lab at MIT devoted entirely to radar
and the like. The name was not a misnomer.

I do agree that it is not dangerous, as long as there is insufficient
radiation to cook tissue thermally.

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush