Conclusion: based on the information available and the testing conducted, this incident was not caused by system malfunction (no system hazard).No definitive explanation for alleged blistering can be provided.A review of the risk management file was performed and this incident reported cannot be considered being associated with the mr examination by ingenia 3.0t cx for the following reasons from a clinical perspective at this point: potential scenarios for this case are related to either skin-to-skin contact, skin-bore wall contact, or antenna effects.Some publications have reported thigh-thigh loop, or right hand-pelvis contact, but the blistering was not located in the exact area.Also, the patient was rather slim (bmi19.6) for thigh-thigh loop; any skin contacts were not observed and isolation was secured by own patient's clothes during scanning.Detailed information including the size and overall area of blistering was not provided by the patient.At this point we cannot further evaluate relatedness of this incident to the mr machine without additional information about patient¿s conditions or materials can cause antenna effects, such as local medication or cream in the area concerned, etc.There was no indication of a system malfunction including any visual irregularities or artifacts in the images taken during the heating event tested by a fse, which suggested that there were no specific materials/substances identified on images that can cause image artifacts and antenna effects.A clinical assessment review was performed and the additional information contained indicates this reported injury meets the criteria for serious injury as the injury was described as a blistering on the patient's vagina (genitals).The patient did not require additional medical treatment and declined to provide photos of the area for the investigation.
|