Skip to main content
Erschienen in: HNO 1/2017

17.02.2016 | Originalien

Prevalence and complications of MRI scans of cochlear implant patients

English version

verfasst von: G. Grupe, J. Wagner, S. Hofmann, A. Stratmann, P. Mittmann, A. Ernst, I. Todt

Erschienen in: HNO | Sonderheft 1/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Crane BT, Gottschalk B, Kraut M et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 31:1215–1220CrossRefPubMed Crane BT, Gottschalk B, Kraut M et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 31:1215–1220CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Gubbels SP, Mcmenomey SO (2006) Safety study of the Cochlear Nucleus 24 device with internal magnet in the 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner. Laryngoscope 116:865–871CrossRefPubMed Gubbels SP, Mcmenomey SO (2006) Safety study of the Cochlear Nucleus 24 device with internal magnet in the 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner. Laryngoscope 116:865–871CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Hassepass F, Stabenau V, Arndt S et al (2014) Magnet dislocation: an increasing and serious complication following MRI in patients with cochlear implants. Rofo 186:680–685CrossRefPubMed Hassepass F, Stabenau V, Arndt S et al (2014) Magnet dislocation: an increasing and serious complication following MRI in patients with cochlear implants. Rofo 186:680–685CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Hassepass F, Stabenau V, Maier W et al (2014) Revision surgery due to magnet dislocation in cochlear implant patients: an emerging complication. Otol Neurotol 35:29–34CrossRefPubMed Hassepass F, Stabenau V, Maier W et al (2014) Revision surgery due to magnet dislocation in cochlear implant patients: an emerging complication. Otol Neurotol 35:29–34CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Majdani O, Leinung M, Rau T et al (2008) Demagnetization of cochlear implants and temperature changes in 3.0T MRI environment. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 139:833–839CrossRef Majdani O, Leinung M, Rau T et al (2008) Demagnetization of cochlear implants and temperature changes in 3.0T MRI environment. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 139:833–839CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Majdani O, Rau TS, Gotz F et al (2009) Artifacts caused by cochlear implants with non-removable magnets in 3T MRI: phantom and cadaveric studies. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266:1885–1890CrossRefPubMed Majdani O, Rau TS, Gotz F et al (2009) Artifacts caused by cochlear implants with non-removable magnets in 3T MRI: phantom and cadaveric studies. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266:1885–1890CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Mukherjee P, Ramsden JD, Donnelly N et al (2013) Cochlear implants to treat deafness caused by vestibular schwannomas. Otol Neurotol 34:1291–1298CrossRefPubMed Mukherjee P, Ramsden JD, Donnelly N et al (2013) Cochlear implants to treat deafness caused by vestibular schwannomas. Otol Neurotol 34:1291–1298CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Portnoy WM, Mattucci K (1991) Cochlear implants as a contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 100:195–197CrossRefPubMed Portnoy WM, Mattucci K (1991) Cochlear implants as a contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 100:195–197CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Risi F, Saldanha A, Leigh R et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging safety of NucleusR 24 cochlear implants at 3.0T International Congress Series 1273. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 394–398 Risi F, Saldanha A, Leigh R et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging safety of NucleusR 24 cochlear implants at 3.0T International Congress Series 1273. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 394–398
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Shellock FG, Woods TO, Crues JV 3rd (2009) MR labeling information for implants and devices: explanation of terminology. Radiology 253:26–30CrossRefPubMed Shellock FG, Woods TO, Crues JV 3rd (2009) MR labeling information for implants and devices: explanation of terminology. Radiology 253:26–30CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Teissl C, Kremser C, Hochmair ES et al (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging and cochlear implants: compatibility and safety aspects. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:26–38CrossRefPubMed Teissl C, Kremser C, Hochmair ES et al (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging and cochlear implants: compatibility and safety aspects. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:26–38CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Todt I, Rademacher G, Mittmann P et al (2015) MRI Artifacts and Cochlear Implant Positioning at 3 T In Vivo. Otol Neurotol 36:972–976CrossRefPubMed Todt I, Rademacher G, Mittmann P et al (2015) MRI Artifacts and Cochlear Implant Positioning at 3 T In Vivo. Otol Neurotol 36:972–976CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Todt I, Wagner J, Goetze R et al (2011) MRI scanning in patients implanted with a Vibrant Soundbridge. Laryngoscope 121:1532–1535CrossRefPubMed Todt I, Wagner J, Goetze R et al (2011) MRI scanning in patients implanted with a Vibrant Soundbridge. Laryngoscope 121:1532–1535CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Walton J, Donnelly NP, Tam YC et al (2014) MRI without magnet removal in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients with cochlear and auditory brainstem implants. Otol Neurotol 35:821–825CrossRefPubMed Walton J, Donnelly NP, Tam YC et al (2014) MRI without magnet removal in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients with cochlear and auditory brainstem implants. Otol Neurotol 35:821–825CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Wild C, Allum J, Probst R et al (2010) Magnet displacement: a rare complication following cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:57–59CrossRefPubMed Wild C, Allum J, Probst R et al (2010) Magnet displacement: a rare complication following cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:57–59CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Prevalence and complications of MRI scans of cochlear implant patients
English version
verfasst von
G. Grupe
J. Wagner
S. Hofmann
A. Stratmann
P. Mittmann
A. Ernst
I. Todt
Publikationsdatum
17.02.2016
Verlag
Springer Medizin
Erschienen in
HNO / Ausgabe Sonderheft 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0017-6192
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-0458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-016-0129-7

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 1/2017

HNO 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren

Update HNO

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.