PD50-01 LUMBOSACRAL 1.5 TESLA MRI COMPATIBILITY WITH SACRAL NEUROMODULATION: AN IN-VIVO PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Non-neurogenic Voiding Dysfunction I1 Apr 2018PD50-01 LUMBOSACRAL 1.5 TESLA MRI COMPATIBILITY WITH SACRAL NEUROMODULATION: AN IN-VIVO PROSPECTIVE STUDY Juan M. Guzman-Negron, Javier Pizarro-Berdichevsky, Bradley Gill, and Howard B. Goldman Juan M. Guzman-NegronJuan M. Guzman-Negron More articles by this author , Javier Pizarro-BerdichevskyJavier Pizarro-Berdichevsky More articles by this author , Bradley GillBradley Gill More articles by this author , and Howard B. GoldmanHoward B. Goldman More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.2329AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Historically, the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with sacral neuromodulation (SNM) devices has been limited. Currently the InterStim II model has only FDA approval for 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI head scans. Our institution completed an in-vitro study demonstrating insignificant heating of InterStim systems during 1.5 T lumbar/pelvic MRI. The goal of this study was to determine the safety of InterStim in patients during non-head MRI, specifically, lumbar and pelvic 1.5 T MRI. METHODS We prospectively recruited InterStim II model implanted patients requiring lumbar/spine or pelvis 1.5 T MRI. Patients completed validated questionnaires and a survey regarding their usual SNM sensation pre MRI scan. The implantable pulse generator (IPG) was interrogated and impedances and battery life were assessed pre and post MRI. Patients were monitored during MRI study. An MRI-related adverse events questionnaire was completed post MRI. Validated questionnaires were completed 1 month after the MRI to assess for any changes in SNM therapeutic efficacy. Descriptive statistics were calculated RESULTS Eleven patients were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent lumbar/spine MRI. The most common indication for MRI was lower back pain 55% (6/11). Immediately after the MRI only 1 patient reported discomfort at the site of the IPG during the MRI, however, discomfort was only present during the scan and not afterwards. Two of the patients reported warmth at the site of the IPG during the MRI, again, this sensation was only present during scanning. None of the patients experienced stimulation or movement at the IPG site and no paresthesia was reported. There were no significant changes in impedances and battery life during IPG interrogation post MRI. Threshold amplitudes for sensation and localization of stimulation were unchanged post MRI. Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaires (IIQ-7) 1 month after MRI did not show worsening scores compared to pre MRI scores. None of the patients reported a negative Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score 1 month after MRI. CONCLUSIONS No significant adverse events occurred in patients implanted with an InterStim II device who underwent 1.5 T non-head MRI scan. Rare complaints reported were discomfort and warmth at the IPG site during scanning. Therapeutic efficacy of SNM was not affected 1 month after undergoing a non-head MRI scan. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e970 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Juan M. Guzman-Negron More articles by this author Javier Pizarro-Berdichevsky More articles by this author Bradley Gill More articles by this author Howard B. Goldman More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...