SOURCE: Medical Physics. 49(5):3416-3431, 2022 May.
AUTHORS: D’Agostino S; Colella M; Liberti M; Falsaperla R; Apollonio F
PURPOSE: This study aims to perform a classification and rigorous numerical evaluation of the risks of occupational exposure in the health environment related to the administration of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment. The study investigates the numerically estimated induced electric field that occurs in the human tissues of an operator caused by exposure to the variable magnetic field produced by TMS during treatments. This could be a useful starting point for future risk
assessment studies and safety indications in this context.
METHODS: We performed a review of the actual positions assumed by clinicians during TMS treatments. Three different TMS coils (two circular and one figure-of-eight) were modeled and characterized numerically. Different orientations and positions of each coil with respect to the body of the operator were investigated to evaluate the induced electric (-E) field in the body tissues. The collected data were processed to allow comparison with the safety standards for occupational exposure, as suggested by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2010 guidelines.
RESULTS: Under the investigated conditions, exposure to TMS shows some criticalities for the operator performing the treatment. Depending on the model of the TMS coil and its relative position with respect to the operator’s body, the numerically estimated E-field could exceed the limits suggested by the ICNIRP 2010 guidelines. We established that the worst-case scenario for the three coils occurs when they are placed in correspondence of the abdomen, with the handle oriented parallel to the body (II orientation). Working at a maximum TMS stimulator output (MSO), the induced E-field is up to 7.32 V/m (circular coil) and up to 1.34 V/m (figure-of-eight coil). The induced E-field can be modulated by the TMS percentage of MSO (%MSO) and by the distance between the source and the operator. At %MSO equal to or below 80%, the figure-of-eight coil was compliant with the ICNIRP limit (1.13 V/m). Conversely, the circular coil causes an induced E-field above the limits, even when powered at a %MSO of 30%. Thus, in the investigated worst-case conditions, an operator working with a circular coil should keep a distance from its edge to be compliant with the guidelines limit, which depends on the selected %MSO: 38 cm at 100%, 32 cm at 80%, 26.8 cm at 50%, and 19.8 cm at 30%. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the induced E-field reached in the operator’s hand as the operator typically holds the coil by hand. In fact in the hand, we estimated an induced E-field up to 10 times higher than the limits.
CONCLUSIONS: Our numerical results indicate that coil positions, orientations, and distances with respect to the operator’s body can determine the levels of induced E-field that exceed the ICNIRP limits. The induced E-field is also modulated by the choice of %MSO, which is related to the TMS application. Even under the best exposure conditions, attention should be paid to the exposure of the hand. These findings highlight the need for future risk assessment studies to provide more safety information for the correct and safe use of TMS devices.