MRI and Implant Safety at Low-Field and Ultralow-Field Strengths - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

. 2026 Feb;63(2):364-377.

doi: 10.1002/jmri.70168. Epub 2025 Dec 19.

Affiliations

Review

MRI and Implant Safety at Low-Field and Ultralow-Field Strengths

Emre Kopanoglu et al. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2026 Feb.

Abstract

Despite its unequivocal value in radiological diagnosis, access to conventional high-field MRI systems remains extremely uneven across the world. Access is particularly limited in underfunded and remote settings, due to the high cost and infrastructure requirements of MRI systems. Low-field MRI offers a range of benefits including affordability, portability, suitability for use in intensive care units, and for point-of-care imaging. Different low-field configurations enhance flexibility in various clinical scenarios, including imaging claustrophobic or obese subjects, accommodating different body postures, extremity-focused investigations, and neonatal imaging. Moreover, lower field strengths offer important safety benefits. However, the overarching assumption that lower fields are safe without exception may foster a false sense of security, potentially leading to hazardous situations. On behalf of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, this paper provides a comprehensive review of important safety considerations for low-field MRI, aiming to inform users and stakeholders of both its benefits and limitations, and to empower them toward its safe use. These recommendations are likely to evolve as new evidence becomes available. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 5. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Keywords: MRI safety; implant safety; low‐field MRI; mid‐field MRI; ultralow‐field MRI.

© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:

Figure 1:

The classification of field strengths as used in this paper.

Figure 2:

Figure 2:

Number of MRI systems per million people in selected countries in (or close to) 2017 [6] and 2018 [4]. Data adapted from OECD Health Statistics 2019 [6] and Ogbole et al. [4]. Markers indicate sources as follows: *, Ref. [6]; ⦁, survey in Ref. [4], ⦂, as reported in Ref. [4]. OECD35 indicates OECD average.

References

    1. Campbell-Washburn AE, Keenan KE, Hu P, et al. Low-field MRI: A report on the 2022 ISMRM workshop. Magn Reson Med 2023;90(4):1682–1694. -PMC -PubMed
    1. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment-Part 2–33: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. 2022. url: Accessed: 29 April 2025.
    1. ASTM. F2503–23ε1: Standard Practice for Marking Medical Devices and Other Items for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance Environment. url: https://www.astm.org/f2503-23e01.html. Accessed: April 29, 2025.
    1. Ogbole GI, Adeyomoye AO, Badu-Peprah A, Mensah Y, Nzeh DA. Survey of magnetic resonance imaging availability in West Africa. Pan Afr Med J 2018;30(1):240. -PMC -PubMed
    1. OECD. Medical technology availability. url: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/. Accessed: March 2024.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources