G Grupe1, J Wagner2, S Hofmann2, A Stratmann2, P Mittmann2, A Ernst2, I Todt2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Warener Str. 7, 12683, Berlin, Deutschland. gloria.grupe@charite.de. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Warener Str. 7, 12683, Berlin, Deutschland.
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 applied 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 prevalence 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 high. Possible complications and preventive measures attract too little attention in radiological daily routine.
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 applied 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 prevalence 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 high. Possible complications and preventive measures attract too little attention in radiological daily routine.
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
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
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
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
Authors: Paul van de Heyning; Griet Mertens; Vedat Topsakal; Ruben de Brito; Wilhelm Wimmer; Marco D Caversaccio; Stefan Dazert; Stefan Volkenstein; Mario Zernotti; Lorne S Parnes; Hinrich Staecker; Iain A Bruce; Gunesh Rajan; Marcus Atlas; Peter Friedland; Piotr H Skarzynski; Serafima Sugarova; Vladislav Kuzovkov; Abdulrahman Hagr; Robert Mlynski; Joachim Schmutzhard; Shin-Ichi Usami; Luis Lassaletta; Javier Gavilán; Benoit Godey; Christopher H Raine; Rudolf Hagen; Georg M Sprinzl; Kevin Brown; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Eva Karltorp Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: S K Plontke; P Caye-Thomasen; C Strauss; S Kösling; G Götze; U Siebolts; D Vordermark; L Wagner; L Fröhlich; T Rahne Journal: HNO Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 1.284