Literature DB >> 26879879

[Prevalence and complications of MRI scans of cochlear implant patients: German version].

G Grupe1, J Wagner2, S Hofmann2, A Stratmann2, P Mittmann2, A Ernst2, I Todt2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cochlear implants (CI) are the preferred method of treatment for patients with severe to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and unilateral deafness. For many years, because of the magnetic field during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations, MRI examinations were contraindicated for CI patients or feasible only under specific circumstances. MRI examinations of CI recipients entail complications and therefore preventive measures have to be considered. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of MRI scans in CI recipients and the occurrence of complications, and furthermore to investigate the preventive measures taken in radiological daily routine.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective questionnaire was sent to 482 patients that received CIs from 1999-2013. Details of the MRI examination and subjective and objective incidents during and after the MRI scan were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 204 CI recipients answered the retrospective questionnaire (42.3%). Twenty patients (9.8%) with 23 implants underwent a total of 33 MRI scans with their cochlear implant in place. In 16 cases the scanned region was the head (49%). Preventive measures in the form of head bandages were taken in 20 cases (61%). The most common complication was pain in 23 cases (70%) and the most serious complication was the dislocation of the internal magnet in 3 cases (9%).
CONCLUSIONS: The number of CI recipients undergoing MRI scans is quite high. Possible complications and preventive measures attract too little attention in radiological daily routine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implant; Complications; Head compression bandage; MRI examination; Magnet dislocation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26879879     DOI: 10.1007/s00106-016-0128-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HNO        ISSN: 0017-6192            Impact factor:   1.284


  14 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Benjamin T Crane; Barbara Gottschalk; Michael Kraut; Nafi Aygun; John K Niparko
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Safety study of the Cochlear Nucleus 24 device with internal magnet in the 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner.

Authors:  Samuel P Gubbels; Sean O McMenomey
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Revision surgery due to magnet dislocation in cochlear implant patients: an emerging complication.

Authors:  Frederike Hassepass; Vanessa Stabenau; Wolfgang Maier; Susan Arndt; Roland Laszig; Rainer Beck; Antje Aschendorff
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Artifacts caused by cochlear implants with non-removable magnets in 3T MRI: phantom and cadaveric studies.

Authors:  Omid Majdani; Thomas S Rau; Friedrich Götz; Martin Zimmerling; Minoo Lenarz; Thomas Lenarz; Robert Labadie; Martin Leinung
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  MRI scanning in patients implanted with a Vibrant Soundbridge.

Authors:  Ingo Todt; Jan Wagner; Romy Goetze; Sandra Scholz; Rainer Seidl; Arne Ernst
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2011-06-06       Impact factor: 3.325

6.  MRI Artifacts and Cochlear Implant Positioning at 3 T In Vivo.

Authors:  Ingo Todt; Grit Rademacher; Philipp Mittmann; Jan Wagner; Sven Mutze; Arne Ernst
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  MRI without magnet removal in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients with cochlear and auditory brainstem implants.

Authors:  Joanna Walton; Neil P Donnelly; Yu Chuen Tam; Ilse Joubert; Juliette Durie-Gair; Cay Jackson; Richard A Mannion; James R Tysome; Patrick R Axon; Daniel J Scoffings
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Cochlear implants to treat deafness caused by vestibular schwannomas.

Authors:  Payal Mukherjee; James D Ramsden; Nick Donnelly; Patrick Axon; Shakeel Saeed; Paul Fagan; Richard M Irving
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Demagnetization of cochlear implants and temperature changes in 3.0T MRI environment.

Authors:  Omid Majdani; Martin Leinung; Thomas Rau; Arash Akbarian; Martin Zimmerling; Minoo Lenarz; Thomas Lenarz; Robert Labadie
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.497

10.  Magnet dislocation: an increasing and serious complication following MRI in patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  F Hassepass; V Stabenau; S Arndt; R Beck; S Bulla; T Grauvogel; A Aschendorff
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2014-02-04
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Postoperative imaging of the internal auditory canal : Visualization of active auditory implants.

Authors:  I Todt; G Rademacher; P Mittmann; S Mutze; A Ernst
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 2.  [Postoperative imaging of the internal auditory canal : Visualization of active auditory implants. German version].

Authors:  I Todt; G Rademacher; P Mittmann; S Mutze; A Ernst
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Effect of head position on cochlear implant MRI artifact.

Authors:  N Ay; H B Gehl; H Sudhoff; I Todt
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  MRI-Based Estimation of Scalar Cochlear-Implant Electrode Position.

Authors:  A Stratmann; P Mittmann; G Rademacher; G Grupe; S Hoffmann; S Mutze; A Ernst; I Todt
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Cochlear implants and 1.5 T MRI scans: the effect of diametrically bipolar magnets and screw fixation on pain.

Authors:  Ingo Todt; Grit Rademacher; Gloria Grupe; Andreas Stratmann; Arne Ernst; Sven Mutze; Philipp Mittmann
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-02-05

6.  3T MRI-based estimation of scalar cochlear implant electrode position.

Authors:  F Tek; S MüLler; E Boga; H B Gehl; D Seitz; L U Scholtz; H Sudhoff; I Todt
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.124

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.