Aim Plastic clips are a diamagnetic material and produce fewer artefacts in the MR field than titanium clips, which are standard in neurosurgery. However, alongside their physical properties, the shape of the clips, and their very geometry subtlety affects their behaviour in the magnetic field. Therefore, we performed a simulation in order to establish which clips cause less disturbance in the magnetic field from the point of view of the geometry of the body. Methods The simulation tool used for the research was the software package COMSOL Mph version 4.3. Since it was a question of magnetics, the models were prepared in the AC/DC module within the option Magnetic Fields, No Currents (mfnc). Within this module we were able to analyse electro-magnetic fields for a specific geometrical structure, using the Finite Element Method in order to resolve the two-dimensional electromagnetic problems. Results The value of the magnetic field with titanium clips with their specific geometric reference lines reached the value of c. (A/m). The simpler geometry of the plastic clips resulted in a less intensive magnetic field, amounting to c. (A/m), which is an entire order of magnitude less than the field with the titanium clips. Conclusion The simpler geometry of the plastic clips and the type of material from which they are made causes less disturbance to the magnetic field, which was precisely confirmed with the simulation model. The use of plastic clips in neurosurgery and neuroradiology will facilitate the interpretation of MR images.
Mayfield F, Kees G. A brief history of the development of the Mayfield clip. J Neurosurg. 1971. p. 97–100.
2.
Belykh E, Giovani A, Abramov I, Ngo B, Bardonova L, Zhao X, et al. System of simulation models for aneurysm clipping training: description of models and assessment of face, content, and construct validity. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown; 2021.
3.
Diana F, Pesce A, Toccaceli G, Muralidharan V, Raz E, Miscusi M, et al. Microsurgical clipping versus newer endovascular techniques in treatment of unruptured anterior communicating artery-complex aneurysms: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2021.
4.
Romner B, Olsson M, Ljunggren B, Holtås S, Säveland H, Brandt L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and aneurysm clips: magnetic properties and image artifacts. J Neurosurg. 1989. p. 426–31.
5.
Van Speybroeck C, Reilly O, Teeuwisse T, Arnold W, Webb P, A. Characterization of displacement forces and image artifacts in the presence of passive medical implants in low-field (<100 mT) permanent magnet-based MRI systems, and comparisons with clinical MRI systems. Phys Med. 2021. p. 116–24.
6.
Kakizawa Y, Seguchi T, Horiuchi T, Hongo K. Cerebral aneurysm clips in the 3-Tesla magnetic field. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg. 2010. p. 859–69.
7.
Tobias-Machado. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal access with duplication of the open technique. Int Braz J Urol. 2004. p. 55–60.
8.
Bomfim A, Andreoni C, Miotto A, Araujo M, Ortiz V, De Figureido P, et al. Boatman’s knot": a new option for renal hilum ligation during laparoscopic nephrectomy. Acta Cir Bras. 2005. p. 744–9.
9.
Pradeep B, Anant K, Aneesh S, Devendra K, Anil M, Mahendra B. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy; our initial experience. Indian J Urol. 2004. p. 154–9.
10.
Schick K, Hutti T, Fertmann J, Hurnung K, Jauch K, Hofmann J. A critical analysis of laparoscopic appendectomy: how experience with 1.400 appendectomies allowed innovative treatment to become standard in a University Hospital. World J Surg. 2008. p. 289–93.
11.
Delibegovic S, Matovic E. Hem-o-lok plastic clips in securing of the base of the appendix during laparoscopic appendectomy. Surg Endosc. 2009. p. 851–4.
12.
Park J, Kim J. Calculation of effective atomic number and normal density using a source weighting method in a dual energy X-ray inspection system. J Korean Phys Soc. 2011. p. 2709–13.
13.
Delibegovic S. Radiologic advantages of potential use of polymer plastic clips in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2014. p. 549–51.
14.
Electromagnetics I. Springer; 2010.
15.
Lee G. Introduction to the Finite Element Method and Implementation with MATLAB. South Carolina. Clemson University; 2021.
16.
Zoraghi M, Scherf N, Jaeger C, Sack I, Hirsch S, Hetzer S, et al. Simulating local deformations in the human cortex due to blood flow-induced changes in mechanical tissue properties: impact on functional magnetic resonance imaging. 2021. p. 722366.
17.
Pranci P, Aprile F, Simoncelli A, Manfrion M, Magnettoo M, Lafe E, et al. MRI-induced artifact by a cochlear implant with a novel magnet system: an experimental cadaver study. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2021. p. 3753–62.
18.
Babicheva V, Gamage S, Stockman M, Abate Y. Near field edge fringes at sharp material boundaries. Optics express. 2017. p. 23935.
19.
Joseph P, Atlas S. Magnetic Resonance Imagining of the Brain and Spine. Atlas SW. Wolters Kluwer Health; p. 151–94.
20.
Delibegovic S, Dizdarevic K, Cickusic E, Katica M, Obhodjas M, Ocus M. Biocompatibility of plastic clip in neurocranium -experimental study on dogs. Turk Neurosurg. 2016. p. 866–70.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
