Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established, safe and effective treatment option for patients with movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) [2], essential tremor (ET) [3], [4] and dystonia [1]. For many of these patients the need for imaging may arise in the following years after implantation. Avoidance of interactions with implant’s metallic components (especially induction), good bone imaging and widespread availability are advantages of computer tomography (CT). The physician on the other hand is confronted with the artifacts due to inserted metal, poor tissue discrimination and of cause x-radiation.

According to estimates 66–75 % of patients with PD, ET or dystonia need to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 10 years, most of these MRI examinations (62 %) being body MRIs [5]. The frequency of imaging performed increases overall: In 2009 a total of 211 image examinations were carried out in Germany per 1000 inhabitants. Out of those, 114 examinations were done in a CT and 97 examinations in an MRI [6]. MRI is the standard of care because of its advantage in multiplanar capabilities and excellent soft tissue resolution. With the increasing availability of MRI-scanners the number of images using this technology increased as well. After the DBS system’s implantation, we are faced with the problem that not all systems are MRI-suitable or only limited suitable (e.g. leads are suitable, generator is not suitable). Due to safety concerns and stringent vendor guidelines MRI-scans of DBS-patients are highly restricted. These guidelines mainly aim to prevent MRI-induced device heating, leading to substantial brain damage and dysfunction of the device [7].

DBS systems usually contain three implanted components, the electrodes. Those are connected via under the skin tunnelled extension cables to the implantable pulse generator (IPG). All components contain some metallic materials and therefore need to be tested for MRI suitability. At present, DBS systems from Medtronic (Medtronic©, Minneapolis, MN, USA), Boston Scientific (Boston Scientific©, Valencia, CA, USA) and Abott (formerly St. Jude; Saint Paul, MN, USA) are on the market. To our knowledge, a head-to-head comparison of these three systems has not been done before in a clinical trial. Each of them has its own characteristic advantage. By now, all manufacturers have rechargeable IPGs in common.

The development of new DBS systems provides patients and physicians with new options and challenges. Now the therapeutic team has to consider individual factors to choose the right system for the individual patient. In this context the clinical relevance of MRI suitable systems has yet to be clarified.

Radiologists have to be aware of the different restrictions and conditions concerning MR-imaging in patients with a DBS system [8], [9].

The study’s aim is to get an overview of the patients amount with a DBS system who needed an MRI after successful implantation, and if they did, whether the imaging led to a surgical consequence. Based on these findings, the ability to give some guidance to colleagues on deciding when the implanted system should be MRI suitable or not is gained.