Medical Imaging Compatibility of Magnesium- and Iron-Based Bioresorbable Flow Diverters

References

1. 1.↵
   1. King JT Jr.

   . Epidemiology of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 1997;7:659–68 pmid:9336491

   PubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Brinjikji W,
   2. Murad MH,
   3. Lanzino G, et al

   . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:442–47 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678151 pmid:23321438

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Kallmes DF,
   2. Hanel R,
   3. Lopes D, et al

   . International retrospective study of the Pipeline embolization device: a multicenter aneurysm treatment study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:108–15 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4111 pmid:25355814

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Becske T,
   2. Brinjikji W,
   3. Potts MB, et al

   . Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following Pipeline embolization device treatment of complex internal carotid artery aneurysms: five-year results of the Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms Trial. Neurosurgery 2017;80:40–48 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw014 pmid:28362885

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Guédon A,
   2. Clarençon F,
   3. Di Maria F, et al

   . Very late ischemic complications in flow-diverter stents: a retrospective analysis of a single-center series. J Neurosurg 2016;125:929–35 doi:10.3171/2015.10.JNS15703 pmid:26824382

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Caroff J,
   2. Tamura T,
   3. King RM, et al

   . Phosphorylcholine surface modified flow diverter associated with reduced intimal hyperplasia. J Neurointerv Surg 2018;10:1097–101 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-013776 pmid:29511117

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Flood TF,
   2. van der Bom IM,
   3. Strittmatter L, et al

   . Quantitative analysis of high-resolution, contrast-enhanced, cone-beam CT for the detection of intracranial in-stent hyperplasia. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:118–25 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010950 pmid:24480728

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Halitcan B,
   2. Bige S,
   3. Sinan B, et al

   . The implications of magnetic resonance angiography artifacts caused by different types of intracranial flow diverters. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2021;23:1–14 doi:10.1186/s12968-020-00692-2 pmid:33390185

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Bouillot P,
   2. Brina O,
   3. Delattre BM, et al

   . Neurovascular stent artifacts in 3D‐TOF and 3D‐PCMRI: influence of stent design on flow measurement. Magn Reson Med 2019;81:560–72 doi:10.1002/mrm.27352 pmid:29893989

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Oliver AA,
    2. Carlson KD,
    3. Bilgin C, et al

    . Bioresorbable flow diverters for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: review of current literature and future directions. J Neurointerv Surg 2023;15:178–82 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018941

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Morrish R,
    2. Corcoran R,
    3. Cooke J, et al

    . Fluoroscopy, CT, and MR imaging characteristics of a novel primarily bioresorbable flow-diverting stent for aneurysms. Interv Neuroradiol 2022;28:660–67 doi:10.1177/15910199211060979 pmid:34787481

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Filli L,
    2. Luechinger R,
    3. Frauenfelder T, et al

    . Metal-induced artifacts in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of a biodegradable magnesium alloy versus titanium and stainless steel controls. Skeletal Radiol 2015;44:849–56 doi:10.1007/s00256-014-2057-5 pmid:25417003

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Sonnow L,
    2. Könneker S,
    3. Vogt PM, et al

    . Biodegradable magnesium Herbert screw: image quality and artifacts with radiography, CT and MRI. BMC Med Imaging 2017;17:1–9 doi:10.1186/s12880-017-0187-7 pmid:28196474

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Bian D,
    2. Qin L,
    3. Lin W, et al

    . Magnetic resonance (MR) safety and compatibility of a novel iron bioresorbable scaffold. Bioact Mater 2020;5:260–74 doi:10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.02.011 pmid:32128465

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Oliver AA,
    2. Bilgin C,
    3. Vercnocke AJ, et al

    . Benchtop proof of concept and comparison of iron and magnesium-based bioresorbable flow diverters. J Neurosurg 2022;1:1–7 doi:10.3171/2022.11.JNS222213 pmid:36681964

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Schaffer JE,
    2. Nauman EA,
    3. Stanciu LA

    . Cold-drawn bioabsorbable ferrous and ferrous composite wires: an evaluation of mechanical strength and fatigue durability. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B 2012;43:984–94 doi:10.1007/s11663-012-9661-3

    CrossRef
17. 17.↵
    1. Schaffer JE

    . Biodegradable alloy wire for medical devices. Google Patents 2020. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014011803A1/en. Accessed April 29, 2023
18. 18.↵
    1. Ishikawa Y,
    2. Endoh Y

    . Antiferromagnetism of γ‐FeMn alloys. J Appl Phys 1968;39:1318–19 doi:10.1063/1.1656274

    CrossRef
19. 19.↵
    ASTM A. F2052‐15: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Displacement Force on Medical Devices in the Magnetic Resonance Environment. ANSI Webstore. 2015. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/astm/astmf205215. Accessed April 29, 2023
20. 20.↵
    ASTM IF2213-17. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Torque on Medical Devices in the Magnetic Resonance Environment. ASTM Compass 2017. https://www.astm.org/f2213-17.html. Accessed April 29, 2023
21. 21.↵
    ASTM F2182-11a. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Radio Frequency Induced Heating on or Near Passive Implants during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. ASTM International West 2011. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/astm/astmf218211a. Accessed April 29, 2023
22. 22.↵
    US Food and Drug Administration. Testing and labeling medical devices for safety in the magnetic resonance (MR) environment: Guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Federal Register 2021
23. 23.↵
    1. Oliver AA,
    2. Sikora-Jasinska M,
    3. Demir AG, et al

    . Recent advances and directions in the development of bioresorbable metallic cardiovascular stents: insights from recent human and in vivo studies. Acta Biomater 2021;127:1–23 doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2021.03.058 pmid:33823325

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Soize S,
    2. Gawlitza M,
    3. Raoult H, et al

    . Imaging follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular means: why, when, and how? Stroke 2016;47:1407–12 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011414 pmid:27026629

    FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Schaafsma JD,
    2. Koffijberg H,
    3. Buskens E, et al

    . Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance angiography versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography to follow-up patients with coiled intracranial aneurysms. Stroke 2010;41:1736–42 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.585083 pmid:20595661

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    1. Burel J,
    2. Gerardin E,
    3. Vannier M, et al

    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverters: evaluation of parent artery patency using 3D-T1 gradient recalled-echo imaging with 2-point Dixon in combination with 3D-TOF-MRA with compressed sensing. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2022;43:554–59 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7448 pmid:35241422

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    1. Lenhart M,
    2. Völk M,
    3. Manke C, et al

    . Stent appearance at contrast-enhanced MR angiography: in vitro examination with 14 stents. Radiology 2000;217:173–78 doi:10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00se28173 pmid:11012441

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Mahnken AH

    . CT imaging of coronary stents: past, present, and future. ISRN Cardiol 2012;2012:1–12 doi:10.5402/2012/139823 pmid:22997590

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Mahnken AH,
    2. Buecker A,
    3. Wildberger JE, et al

    . Coronary artery stents in multislice computed tomography: in vitro artifact evaluation. Invest Radiol 2004;39:27–33 doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000095471.91575.18 pmid:14701986

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Maintz D,
    2. Burg MC,
    3. Seifarth H, et al

    . Update on multidetector coronary CT angiography of coronary stents: in vitro evaluation of 29 different stent types with dual-source CT. Eur Radiol 2009;19:42–49 doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1132-5 pmid:18682956

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    1. Leng S,
    2. Bruesewitz M,
    3. Tao S, et al

    . Photon-counting detector CT: system design and clinical applications of an emerging technology. Radiographics 2019;39:729–43 doi:10.1148/rg.2019180115 pmid:31059394

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Lee EM,
    2. Ibrahim E-SH,
    3. Dudek N, et al

    . Improving MR image quality in patients with metallic implants. Radiographics 2021;41:E126–37 doi:10.1148/rg.2021200092 pmid:34143712

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Fujiwara NH,
    2. Cloft HJ,
    3. Marx WF, et al

    . Serial angiography in an elastase-induced aneurysm model in rabbits: evidence for progressive aneurysm enlargement after creation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:698–703 pmid:11290481

    Abstract/FREE Full Text