36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Electromagnetic interference of GSM mobile phones with the implantable deep brain stimulator, ITREL-III

      research-article
      1 , , 2 , 3
      BioMedical Engineering OnLine
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The purpose was to investigate mobile phone interference with implantable deep brain stimulators by means of 10 different 900 Mega Hertz (MHz) and 10 different 1800 MHz GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) mobile phones.

          Methods

          All tests were performed in vitro using a phantom especially developed for testing with deep brain stimulators. The phantom was filled with liquid phantom materials simulating brain and muscle tissue. All examinations were carried out inside an anechoic chamber on two implants of the same type of deep brain stimulator: ITREL-III from Medtronic Inc., USA.

          Results

          Despite a maximum transmitted peak power of mobile phones of 1 Watt (W) at 1800 MHz and 2 W at 900 MHz respectively, no influence on the ITREL-III was found. Neither the shape of the pulse form changed nor did single pulses fail. Tests with increased transmitted power using CW signals and broadband dipoles have shown that inhibition of the ITREL-III occurs at frequency dependent power levels which are below the emissions of GSM mobile phones. The ITREL-III is essentially more sensitive at 1800 MHz than at 900 MHz. Particularly the frequency range around 1500 MHz shows a very low interference threshold.

          Conclusion

          These investigations do not indicate a direct risk for ITREL-III patients using the tested GSM phones. Based on the interference levels found with CW signals, which are below the mobile phone emissions, we recommend similar precautions as for patients with cardiac pacemakers: 1. The phone should be used at the ear at the opposite side of the implant and 2. The patient should avoid carrying the phone close to the implant.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of parkinsonian signs and symptoms of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation.

          In monkeys rendered parkinsonian, lesions and electrical stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus reduce all major motor disturbances. The effect of electrical stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus was assessed in three patients with disabling akinetic-rigid Parkinson's disease and severe motor fluctuations. Quadripolar electrodes connected to a pulse generator were implanted in the subthalamic nuclei on both sides. Patients were evaluated with the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale and timed motor tests. 3 months after surgery, activities of daily living scores had improved by 58-88% and motor scores by 42-84%. This improvement was maintained for up to 8 months in the first patient operated upon. One patient was confused for 2 weeks after surgery, and another developed neuropsychological impairment related to a thalamic infarction which improved over 3 months. In one patient, stimulation could induce ballism that was stopped by reduction of stimulation. This is the first demonstration in human beings of the part played by the subthalamic nuclei in the pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Interference with cardiac pacemakers by cellular telephones.

            A growing body of evidence suggests that electromagnetic interference may occur between cardiac pacemakers and wireless hand-held (cellular) telephones, posing a potential public health problem. Electromagnetic interference may occur when the pacemaker is exposed to an electromagnetic field generated by the cellular telephone. In this multicenter, prospective, crossover study, we tested 980 patients with cardiac pacemakers with five types of telephones (one analogue and four digital) to assess the potential for interference. Telephones were tested in a test mode and were programmed to transmit at the maximal power, simulating the worst-case scenario; in addition, one telephone was tested during actual transmission to simulate actual use. Patients were electrocardiographically monitored while the telephones were tested at the ipsilateral ear and in a series of maneuvers directly over the pacemaker. Interference was classified according to the type and clinical significance of the effect. The incidence of any type of interference was 20 percent in the 5533 tests, and the incidence of symptoms was 7.2 percent. The incidence of clinically significant interference was 6.6 percent. There was no clinically significant interference when the telephone was placed in the normal position over the ear. Interference that was definitely clinically significant occurred in only 1.7 percent of tests, and only when the telephone was held over the pacemaker. Interference was more frequent with dual-chamber pacemakers (25.3 percent) than with single-chamber pacemakers (6.8 percent, P<0.001) and more frequent with pacemakers without feed-through filters (28.9 to 55.8 percent) than with those with such filters (0.4 to 0.8 percent, P=0.01). Cellular telephones can interfere with the function of implanted cardiac pacemakers. However, when telephones are placed over the ear, the normal position, this interference does not pose a health risk.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Electromagnetic interference of pacemakers by mobile phones.

              The topic of interference of pacemakers by mobile phones has evoked a surprisingly strong interest, not only in pacemaker patients, but also in the public opinion. The latter is the more surprising, as in the past, the problem of interference has scarcely found the attention that it deserves in the interest of the patient. It was the intention of our investigation to test as many pacemaker models as possible to determine whether incompatibility with mobile phones of different modes may exist, using an in vitro measuring setup. We had access to 231 different models of 20 manufacturers. During the measurements, a pulse generator together with a suitable lead was situated in a 0.9 g/L saline solution, and the antenna of a mobile phone was positioned as close as possible. If the pulse generator was disturbed, the antenna was elevated until interference ceased. The gap in which interference occurred was defined as "maximum interference distance." All three nets existing in Germany, the C-net (450 MHz, analogue), the D-net (900 MHz, digital pulsed), and the E-net (1,800 MHz, digital pulsed) were tested in succession. Out of 231 pulse generator models, 103 pieces corresponding to 44.6% were influenced either by C- or D-net, if both results were totaled. However, this view is misleading as no patient will use C- and D-net phones simultaneously. Separated into C- or D-net interference, the result is 30.7% for C or 34.2% for D, respectively, of all models tested. The susceptible models represent 18.6% or 27% of today's living patients, respectively. All models were resistant to the E-net. With respect to D-net phones, all pacemakers of six manufacturers proved to be unaffected. Eleven other manufacturers possessed affected and unaffected models as well. A C-net phone only prolonged up to five pacemaker periods within 10 seconds during dialing without substantial impairment to the patient. Bipolar pacemakers are as susceptible as unipolar ones. The following advice for patients and physicians can be derived from our investigations: though 27% of all patients may have problems with D-net phones (not C- or E-net), the application should generally not be questioned. On the contrary, patients with susceptible devices should be advised that a distance of 20 cm is sufficient to guarantee integrity of the pacemaker with respect to hand held phones. Portables, on the other hand, should have a distance of about 0.5 m. Pacemaker patients really suffering from mobile phones are very rare unless the phone is just positioned in the pocket over the pulse generator. The contralateral pocket or the belt position guarantees, in 99% of all patients, undisturbed operation of the pacemaker. A risk analysis reveals that the portion of patients really suffering from mobile phones is about 1 out of 100,000. Nevertheless, it would be desirable in the future if implanting physicians would use only pacemakers with immunity against mobile phones as guaranteed by the manufacturers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Biomed Eng Online
                BioMedical Engineering OnLine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1475-925X
                2003
                7 May 2003
                : 2
                : 11
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Mobile Communications Safety, ARC Seibersdorf Research, Austria
                [2 ]Department of Neurosurgery, AKH Vienna, Austria
                [3 ]Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, MD, USA
                Article
                1475-925X-2-11
                10.1186/1475-925X-2-11
                156641
                12773204
                37671edf-bc1b-4125-bc9a-3e17dc4664dc
                Copyright © 2003 Kainz et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
                History
                : 23 December 2002
                : 7 May 2003
                Categories
                Research

                Biomedical engineering
                Biomedical engineering

                Comments

                Comment on this article