Martin Leinung1, Andreas G Loth2, Michaela Kroth2, Iris Burck3, Timo Stöver2, Silke Helbig2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. martin.leinung@kgu.de. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For cochlear implants (CI) with removable magnets, a pressure bandage usually is recommended during MR imaging to avoid magnet dislocation. Nevertheless, this complication is regularly observed despite applying a pressure bandage. The aim of this study was to compare various bandaging techniques to avoid magnet displacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As an experimental model a force measuring stand was developed and validated, on which the process of magnet dislocation could be simulated on a cochlear implant. In a test series with six combinations of cohesive and elastic bandages with different counter pressure elements (CPE), the forces required to induce magnet dislocation against the resistance of a compression bandage was determined. In addition, the inter- and intraindividual variability of the compression bandages was measured for ten different users. RESULTS: The cohesive bandage had the lowest average holding force of 10.70 N. The elastic bandage developed more than four times the retention force of the cohesive bandage (44.88 N, p < 0.01). By adding a CPE, these values could be increased highly significantly up to factor 3. The optimum combination in terms of fixation force against magnet dislocation was an elastic bandage plus a cylindrical CPE (76.60 N). The data showed a high interindividual variability. CONCLUSION: Even though most CI manufacturers now offer 3T-conditional implants, a pressure bandage will have to be applied to thousands of patients with previous implant generations to prevent magnet dislocation. We examined for the first time force measurements to compare different bandaging techniques by detecting the holding force of the CI magnet. We were able to identify an optimized combination of a bandage and a CPE to immobilize the CI magnet. However, our data also demonstrated a significant scatter amongst different examiners. Although our data provide valuable data for potential clinical application, future development of the dressing technique is required for human use.
INTRODUCTION: For cochlear implants (CI) with removable magnets, a pressure bandage usually is recommended during MR imaging to avoid magnet dislocation. Nevertheless, this complication is regularly observed despite applying a pressure bandage. The aim of this study was to compare various bandaging techniques to avoid magnet displacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As an experimental model a force measuring stand was developed and validated, on which the process of magnet dislocation could be simulated on a cochlear implant. In a test series with six combinations of cohesive and elastic bandages with different counter pressure elements (CPE), the forces required to induce magnet dislocation against the resistance of a compression bandage was determined. In addition, the inter- and intraindividual variability of the compression bandages was measured for ten different users. RESULTS: The cohesive bandage had the lowest average holding force of 10.70 N. The elastic bandage developed more than four times the retention force of the cohesive bandage (44.88 N, p < 0.01). By adding a CPE, these values could be increased highly significantly up to factor 3. The optimum combination in terms of fixation force against magnet dislocation was an elastic bandage plus a cylindrical CPE (76.60 N). The data showed a high interindividual variability. CONCLUSION: Even though most CI manufacturers now offer 3T-conditional implants, a pressure bandage will have to be applied to thousands of patients with previous implant generations to prevent magnet dislocation. We examined for the first time force measurements to compare different bandaging techniques by detecting the holding force of the CI magnet. We were able to identify an optimized combination of a bandage and a CPE to immobilize the CI magnet. However, our data also demonstrated a significant scatter amongst different examiners. Although our data provide valuable data for potential clinical application, future development of the dressing technique is required for human use.
Authors: Matthew L Carlson; Brian A Neff; Michael J Link; John I Lane; Robert E Watson; Kiaran P McGee; Matt A Bernstein; Colin L W Driscoll Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Yu Chuen Tam; Jennifer W Y Lee; Juliette Gair; Cay Jackson; Neil P Donnelly; James R Tysome; Patrick R Axon; Manohar L Bance Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Martin Leinung; Andreas Loth; Maximilian Gröger; Iris Burck; Thomas Vogl; Timo Stöver; Silke Helbig Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Bo Gyung Kim; Jin Won Kim; Jeong Jin Park; Sung Huhn Kim; Hee Nam Kim; Jae Young Choi Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 6.223
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