First report of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with implanted InterStim Twin (model 7427T) sacral nerve stimulator
1 January 2020
Purpose: To detect possible effects of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans on the function of an InterStim Twin sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) device and on patient’s health. There is no authorization for MRI scans in InterStim Twin SNS at all.
Material and Methods: 10 patients with Interstim Twin sacral nerve stimulator implants underwent a singular MRI scan. Before the MRI was performed, the SNS device function was evaluated and the device was deactivated be the implanting urologist. A continuous monitoring took place during MRI procedure. Micturition-time chart pre- and post MRI procedures were conducted. After the MRI session was completed, the implanted device was examined once more and reactivated, function then was evaluated.
Results: A total of 10 patients required MRI examinations in 8 different body regions. No patient reported pain or discomfort during and after the MRI scan. After reactivation of the InterStim Twin device following the MRI, impedances and stimulation amplitude, micturition frequency, urgency, and incontinence episodes remained stable. No significant differences between pre- and post MRI were found (p>0.05).
Conclusion: This is the first report of patients successfully undergoing a MRI scan despite a previously implanted Interstim Twin sacral nerve stimulator. No negative effect of SNS function or negative side effects for the patients were observed.
- magnetic resonance imaging
- sacral nerve stimulator
- InterStim Twin
How to Cite
Coolen RL, Groen J, Blok B: Electrical stimulation in the treatment of bladder dysfunction: technology update. Med Devices. 2019;12:337-345.
Thornton JS: Technical challenges and safety of magnetic resonance imaging with in situ neuromodulation from spine to brain. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2017;21: 232–41.
Quirouet A, Bhattacharyya PK, Dielubanza EJ, Gill BC, Jones SE, Goldman HB: Sacral neuromodulation device heating during lumbar and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging—a phantom study. Urology. 2017;107: 61.
De Wachter S, Knowels CH, Elterman DS, et al: New Technologies and Applications in Sacral Neuromodulation: An Update. Adv Ther 2020;37(2):637-643.
Kalin R, Stanton MS: Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28:326–8.
Chermansky CJ, Krlin RM, Holley TD, Woo HH, Winters JC: Magnetic resonance imaging following InterStim®: an institutional experience with imaging safety and patient satisfaction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011; 30:1486–8.
Elkelini MS, Hassouna MM: Safety of MRI at 1.5Tesla in patients with implanted sacral nerve neurostimulator. Eur Urol. 2006; 50:311–6.
Alsyouf M, Keheila M, Marinone M, Blackburn A, Staack A: Magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle performed on an InterStim patient. Can J Urol. 2016; 23: 8168–70.
Muehling OM, Wakili R, Greif M, von Ziegler F, Morhard D, Brueckmann H, et al: Immediate and 12 months follow up of function and lead integrity after cranial MRI in 356 patients with conventional cardiac pacemakers. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16: 39.
Nazarian S, Hansford R, Rahsepar AA, Weltin V, McVeigh D, Gucuk Ipek E, et al: Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac devices. N Engl J Med. 2018;377: 2555.
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- Just Accepted/6307 Downloaded: 0 times