Risk of magnetic resonance imaging-induced magnet dislocation for different types of cochlear implants: a single-center retrospective study.
CI24RE
CI500
Cochlear implant
Complication
Magnet dislocation
Magnet repositioning
Magnetic resonance imaging
Synchrony
Journal
Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
ISSN: 1916-0216
Titre abrégé: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101479544
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Apr 2023
21 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
28
11
2022
accepted:
23
02
2023
medline:
25
4
2023
pubmed:
22
4
2023
entrez:
21
04
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
When performing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with a cochlear implant (CI), complication rates vary widely in the literature. The primary objective of this retrospective study was to determine the prevalence of complications, in particular magnet dislocation, in patients with CI undergoing 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI. As a secondary objective, the prevalence of magnet dislocation for specific cochlear implant device types was elaborated. In a single-center retrospective study, all patients with a cochlear implant presenting for an MRI examination at 1.5 T at our institution between January 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2020 were included. Implants with axial and diametrical magnets were included in the study. MRI safety measures were applied before imaging. The prevalence of complications was evaluated. Magnet dislocation rates were calculated for device types with at least 20 MRI exposures. During the study period, 196 MRI examinations were performed in a total of 128 patients, accounting for 149 different implants (21 implanted bilaterally) with a total of 231 implant exposures to MRI (average 1.69 ± 1.57; min. 1, max. 12). Complications were reported in 50 out of 231 cochlear implant exposures (21.6%). Magnet dislocation occurred in a total of 27 cases (11.7%). Dislocation rates were 29.6% for the Cochlear® CI500 series (24 dislocations from 81 exposures), 1.1% for the Cochlear® CI24RE series (1 from 87) and 0% for the MED-EL® Synchrony (0 from 36). The dislocation rate for the CI500 was significantly higher than for the CI24RE (χ For 1.5 T MRI, the risk of magnet dislocation ranges from 0 to 29.6% and depends on the CI device type. Implants with a diametrical magnet can be considered potentially MRI-safe, whereas in CIs with axial magnets, the CI500 is at high risk of magnet dislocation. Therefore, apart from a strict indication for an MRI and adherence to safety protocols, post-MRI follow-up examination to rule out magnet dislocation is recommended.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
When performing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with a cochlear implant (CI), complication rates vary widely in the literature. The primary objective of this retrospective study was to determine the prevalence of complications, in particular magnet dislocation, in patients with CI undergoing 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI. As a secondary objective, the prevalence of magnet dislocation for specific cochlear implant device types was elaborated.
METHODS
METHODS
In a single-center retrospective study, all patients with a cochlear implant presenting for an MRI examination at 1.5 T at our institution between January 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2020 were included. Implants with axial and diametrical magnets were included in the study. MRI safety measures were applied before imaging. The prevalence of complications was evaluated. Magnet dislocation rates were calculated for device types with at least 20 MRI exposures.
RESULTS
RESULTS
During the study period, 196 MRI examinations were performed in a total of 128 patients, accounting for 149 different implants (21 implanted bilaterally) with a total of 231 implant exposures to MRI (average 1.69 ± 1.57; min. 1, max. 12). Complications were reported in 50 out of 231 cochlear implant exposures (21.6%). Magnet dislocation occurred in a total of 27 cases (11.7%). Dislocation rates were 29.6% for the Cochlear® CI500 series (24 dislocations from 81 exposures), 1.1% for the Cochlear® CI24RE series (1 from 87) and 0% for the MED-EL® Synchrony (0 from 36). The dislocation rate for the CI500 was significantly higher than for the CI24RE (χ
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
For 1.5 T MRI, the risk of magnet dislocation ranges from 0 to 29.6% and depends on the CI device type. Implants with a diametrical magnet can be considered potentially MRI-safe, whereas in CIs with axial magnets, the CI500 is at high risk of magnet dislocation. Therefore, apart from a strict indication for an MRI and adherence to safety protocols, post-MRI follow-up examination to rule out magnet dislocation is recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37085925
doi: 10.1186/s40463-023-00633-w
pii: 10.1186/s40463-023-00633-w
pmc: PMC10122328
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
28Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Ear Hear. 2021 Mar 02;42(5):1276-1283
pubmed: 33657576
Otol Neurotol. 2015 Jul;36(6):965-71
pubmed: 25931165
Laryngoscope. 2021 Mar;131(3):E952-E956
pubmed: 32569426
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 May;277(5):1297-1304
pubmed: 32008075
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Jun;133:110015
pubmed: 32229365
Laryngoscope. 2019 Feb;129(2):482-489
pubmed: 30412276
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Nov;278(11):4225-4233
pubmed: 33788034
HNO. 2017 Jan;65(Suppl 1):35-40
pubmed: 26886493
Cochlear Implants Int. 2013 Jan;14(1):51-5
pubmed: 22449316
Otol Neurotol. 2021 Oct 1;42(9):1334-1341
pubmed: 34172665
Otol Neurotol. 2021 Jan;42(1):51-58
pubmed: 33044338
Otol Neurotol. 2018 Feb;39(2):e80-e86
pubmed: 29210950
Cochlear Implants Int. 2021 Jul;22(4):195-202
pubmed: 33576730
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Feb 5;47(1):11
pubmed: 29402322
Rofo. 2014 Jul;186(7):680-5
pubmed: 24497090
Otol Neurotol. 2017 Dec;38(10):e401-e404
pubmed: 28938274
Otol Neurotol. 2020 Jun;41(5):e556-e562
pubmed: 31985706
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Dec;40(10):e966-e974
pubmed: 31524762
Clin Radiol. 2019 Dec;74(12):972.e9-972.e16
pubmed: 31324337
Laryngoscope. 2013 Mar;123(3):783-6
pubmed: 23086709
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Jul;37(6):665-71
pubmed: 27153331
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Aug;40(7):883-891
pubmed: 31219967
Otol Neurotol. 2021 Jun 1;42(5):e536-e542
pubmed: 33534388
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 Jun;109:44-49
pubmed: 29728183