Matthew Shew1, Helena Wichova1, James Lin1, Luke N Ledbetter2, Hinrich Staecker1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas, U.S.A. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to evaluate the safety in patients with cochlear implants (CIs) and auditory brainstem implants (ABI) undergoing 1.5 Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Secondly, we want to raise awareness on CI and MRI safety, and advocate for continued improvement and advancement to minimize morbidity for our CI patients. METHODS: Retrospective case series from 2006 to 2018 at a single tertiary academic center. Data was collected on patients with CI or auditory brainstem implants undergoing MRI. Outcomes collected include demographic data, age at time of MRI, MRI characteristics, complications, CI manufacturer, and image quality. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with CI or ABI collectively underwent a total of 62 MRI scans. Five of 15 (33%) CI patients with magnet had complications: five total of 24 MRI scans (21%). Two patients had magnet removal prior to 29 MRI scans without complications. Four of five MRI-related complications were equipped with a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved head wrap. Three of five required a trip to the operating room to explore and reposition the CI magnet; two could not complete MRI secondary to pain. Of the complications, two were Cochlear (Sydney, Australia), two Advanced Bionics (Valencia, CA), and one MED-EL (Innsbruck, Austria). Synchrony model (MED-EL) had 0 of seven complications, with a total of 19 MRI scans, which features a freely rotating and self-aligning magnet. CONCLUSION: Our series offers a diverse number of CI manufacturers and is in accordance with other literature that CI MRI-related adverse events are occurring at an unacceptable frequency. We can promote CI MRI safety through our institutions' MRI CI patient protocols, raise awareness that diagnostic MRI benefits must outweigh CI-related complications, and advocate for continued industry technological innovation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:482-489, 2019.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to evaluate the safety in patients with cochlear implants (CIs) and auditory brainstem implants (ABI) undergoing 1.5 Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Secondly, we want to raise awareness on CI and MRI safety, and advocate for continued improvement and advancement to minimize morbidity for our CI patients. METHODS: Retrospective case series from 2006 to 2018 at a single tertiary academic center. Data was collected on patients with CI or auditory brainstem implants undergoing MRI. Outcomes collected include demographic data, age at time of MRI, MRI characteristics, complications, CI manufacturer, and image quality. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with CI or ABI collectively underwent a total of 62 MRI scans. Five of 15 (33%) CI patients with magnet had complications: five total of 24 MRI scans (21%). Two patients had magnet removal prior to 29 MRI scans without complications. Four of five MRI-related complications were equipped with a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved head wrap. Three of five required a trip to the operating room to explore and reposition the CI magnet; two could not complete MRI secondary to pain. Of the complications, two were Cochlear (Sydney, Australia), two Advanced Bionics (Valencia, CA), and one MED-EL (Innsbruck, Austria). Synchrony model (MED-EL) had 0 of seven complications, with a total of 19 MRI scans, which features a freely rotating and self-aligning magnet. CONCLUSION: Our series offers a diverse number of CI manufacturers and is in accordance with other literature that CI MRI-related adverse events are occurring at an unacceptable frequency. We can promote CI MRI safety through our institutions' MRI CI patient protocols, raise awareness that diagnostic MRI benefits must outweigh CI-related complications, and advocate for continued industry technological innovation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:482-489, 2019.
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: Asma Alahmadi; Saad Alenzi; Mohammed Alsheikh; Saeed Alghamdi; Mostafa E Morra; Khalid M Badr Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 1.422
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
Authors: Pietro Canzi; Marianna Magnetto; Anna Simoncelli; Marco Manfrin; Federico Aprile; Elvis Lafe; Elena Carlotto; Irene Avato; Andrea Scribante; Lorenzo Preda; Marco Benazzo Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 2.503