Review article| Volume 85, ISSUE 6, P538-543, June 2012

Magnetic resonance imaging and gynecological devices



      Performing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on women with gynecological devices is a completely accepted practice. The goal of our review is to assess how safe it is to perform MRI on women using contraceptive implants or devices.

      Study Design

      Literature review, searching in PubMed-Medline/Ovid for the following keywords: magnetic resonance imaging, intrauterine devices, Implanon�� and Essure��.


      Though plastic devices do not represent a contraindication to the use of the technique, those including metallic components have been submitted to several tests, after which they were classified as MR Conditional (devices presenting no risks in MR-specific environments) by the Food and Drug Administration. Thus, the use of MRI can be safely advised to women with this type of device as long as the magnetic resonance equipment is ���3.0 T.


      Presently, there is no scientific evidence that contraindicates performing MRI on women with any kind of gynecological device. Therefore, this procedure is safe as long as it is performed under previously tested conditions.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Lee J.K.T.
        • Sagel S.S.
        • Standley R.J.
        • Heikein J.P.
        4th ed. Computed body tomography with MRI correlation. Vol. 20. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia2006: 1341-1378
        • Nunes M.C.F.
        • Soares H.
        • Masao I.
        Imagem por resson��ncia magn��tica: princ��pios b��sicos.
        Ci��ncia Rural. 2009; 39: 1287-1295
        • Pooley R.A.
        Fundamental physics of MR imaging.
        RadioGraphics. 2005; 25: 1087-1099
        • Shellock F.G.
        • Woods T.O.
        • Crues III, J.V.
        MR labeling information for implants and devices: explanation of terminology.
        Radiology. 2009; 253: 26-30
        • Pal��cio G.A.S.
        • Francisco V.V.
        • Abbehusen C.L.
        • Tiferes D.A.
        • D'Ippolito G.
        • Szejnfeld J.
        Artefactos em resson��ncia magn��tica do abd��men: ensaio iconogr��fico.
        Radiol Bras. 2002; 35: 371-376
        • Suh J.S.
        • Jeong E.K.
        • Shin K.H.
        • et al.
        Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 171: 1207-1213
        • Laakman R.W.
        • Kaufman B.
        • Han J.S.
        • Nelson A.D.
        • Clampitt M.
        • O'Block A.M.
        • et al.
        MR imaging in patients with metallic implants.
        Radiology. 1985; 157: 711-714
        • Shellock F.G.
        New metallic implant used for permanent contraception in women: evaluation of MR safety.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 178: 1513-1516
        • Woods T.O.
        Standards for medical devices in MRI: present and future.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007; 26: 1186-1189
        • Mark A.S.
        Hricak H. Intrauterine contraceptive devices: MR imaging.
        Radiology. 1987; 162: 311-314
        • Hess T.
        • Stepanow B.
        • Knopp M.V.
        Magnetic resonance imaging. Safety of intrauterine contraceptive devices during MR imaging.
        Eur Radiol. 1996; 6: 66-68
        • Pasquale S.A.
        • Russer T.J.
        • Foldesy R.
        • Mezrich R.S.
        Lack of interaction between magnetic resonance imaging and the copper-T380A IUD.
        Contraception. 1997; 55: 169-173
        • Zieman M.
        • Kanal E.
        Copper T 380A IUD and magnetic resonance imaging.
        Contraception. 2007; 75: 93-95
        • Shellock F.G.
        Biomedical implants and devices: assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-tesla MR system.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 16: 721-732
        • Wittmer M.H.
        • Brown D.L.
        • Hartman R.P.
        • Famuyide A.O.
        • Kawashima A.
        • King B.F.
        Sonography, CT, and MRI appearance of the Essure microinsert permanent birth control device.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187: 959-964
        • Speroff L.
        • Darney P.D.
        Implant contraception: a clinical guide for contraception. 4th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia2005: 165-200
        • Westerway S.C.
        • Picker R.
        • Christie J.
        Implanon implant detection with ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.
        Aust Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003; 43: 346-350
        • Shulman L.P.
        • Gabriel H.
        Management and localization strategies for the nonpalpable Implanon rod.
        Contraception. 2006; 73: 325-330