Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T16:52:17.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dislocation of cochlear implant magnet during 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging despite head bandaging, and its repositioning using an endoscopic approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2018

W J C Leong*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore
H W Yuen
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Wen Jun Clement Leong, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore E-mail: lwjclement@gmail.com

Abstract

Background

Dislocation of the cochlear implant magnet is an uncommon but recognised complication of magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with a cochlear implant.

Case report

This paper reports a case of cochlear implant magnet dislocation despite head bandaging. The patient subsequently underwent endoscopic repositioning of the magnet under general anaesthesia. The cochlear implant system was tested intra-operatively and confirmed to be functioning. The patient was well at follow up and the small wound healed well with no complications.

Conclusion

This report presents the endoscopic technique as a viable minimally invasive surgical approach to address cochlear implant magnet dislocation.

Type
Clinical Records
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr W J C Leong takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Berettini, S, Baggiani, A, Bruschini, L, Cassandro, E, Cuda, D, Filipo, R et al. Systematic review of the literature on the clinical effectiveness of the cochlear implant procedure in adult patients. Acta Otorhinolaringol Ital 2011;31:299310Google Scholar
2Turchetti, G, Belelli, S, Palla, I, Berrettini, S. Systematic review of the scientific literature on the economic evaluation of cochlear implants in adult patients. Acta Otorhinolaringol Ital 2011;31:319–27Google Scholar
3Cohen, NL, Hofman, RA. Complications of cochlear implant surgery in adults and children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991;100:708–11Google Scholar
4Terry, B, Kelt, RE, Jeyakumar, A. Delayed complications after cochlear implantation. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;141:1012–17Google Scholar
5Hassepass, F, Stabenau, V, Arndt, S, Beck, R, Bulla, S, Grauvogel, T et al. Magnet dislocation: an increasing and serious complication following MRI in patients with cochlear implants. Rofo 2014;186:680 – 5Google Scholar
6Özgür, A, Dursun, E, Çeliker, FB, Terzi, S. Magnet dislocation during 3 T magnetic resonance imaging in a pediatric case with cochlear implant. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. Epub 2016 Jun 18Google Scholar
7Azadarmaki, R, Tubbs, R, Chen, DA, Shellock, FG. MRI information for commonly used otologic implants: review and update. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;150:512–19Google Scholar
8Cuda, D, Murri, A, Succo, G. Focused tight dressing does not prevent cochlear implant magnet migration under 1.5 Tesla MRI. Acta Otorhinolaringol Ital 2013;33:133–6Google Scholar
9Ray, J, Proops, D, Donaldson, I, Fielden, C, Cooper, H. Explantation and reimplantation of cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2004;5:160–7Google Scholar
10Di Nardo, W, Giannantonio, S, Schinaia, L, De Corso, E, Pauludetti, G. Noninvasive management of cochlear implant's inner magnet displacement after magnetic resonance: a case report. Laryngoscope 2013;123:783–6Google Scholar
11Hu, X, Ma, H, Xue, Z, Qi, H, Chen, B. Endoscopic facelift of the frontal and temporal areas in multiple planes. Singapore Med J 2017;58:107–10Google Scholar
12Orhan, KS, Polat, B, Çelik, M, Çomoğlu, S, Güldiken, Y. Endoscopic-assisted cochlear implantation: a case series. J Int Adv Otol 2016;12:337–40Google Scholar