MRI Safety of Stapes Prostheses: A Systematic Review.
Journal
Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
ISSN: 1537-4505
Titre abrégé: Otol Neurotol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100961504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Mar 2024
22 Mar 2024
Historique:
medline:
23
3
2024
pubmed:
23
3
2024
entrez:
22
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To assess magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety of stapes prostheses. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to November 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting evidence of stapes prosthesis displacement or interaction in adult or pediatric implant recipients undergoing MRI. Cadaveric, animal, and basic studies with nonhuman data were also included. From an initial search of 123 articles, 42 full-text studies were evaluated for eligibility and 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Motion artifact was reported in a few stainless steel prosthesis types in vitro; however, such displacement was not observed in human cadaver temporal bone studies and had no adverse reported outcomes. A small subgroup of patients in the 1980s received a ferromagnetic stainless steel stapes implant that was recalled and has not been used since 1987. Patients with implants performed in the 1980s should be directed to 1.5T scanners from an abundance of caution. Modern (post-1987) stapes prostheses do not pose a risk in vivo when exposed to the magnetic fields of MRI scanners.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38518765
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004170
pii: 00129492-990000000-00533
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.
Références
Fritsch MH. MRI scanners and the stapes prosthesis. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:733–8.
Syms MJ. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging of stapes prostheses. Laryngoscope 2005;115:381–90.
Fritsch MH, Gutt JJ, Naumann IC. Magnetic properties of middle ear and stapes implants in a 9.4-T magnetic resonance field. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:1064–9.
Vrabec JT, Coker NJ. Stapes surgery in the United States. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:465–9.
OECD iLibrary health care activities: Medical technologies. OECD. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/health_glance-2015-31-en.pdf?expires=1655785898&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=9340F08F37F2F1380CD50DEC515CE211. Published 2015. Accessed April 1, 2022.
Mattucci KF, Setzen M, Hyman R, Chaturvedi G. The effect of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging on metallic middle ear prostheses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;94:441–3.
Leon JA, OF G. Middle ear prosthesis: Significance in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1987;5:405–6.
White DW. Interaction between magnetic fields and metallic ossicular prostheses. Am J Otol 1987;8:90–2.
Wild DC, Head K, Hall DA. Safe magnetic resonance scanning of patients with metallic middle ear implants. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:508–10.
Applebaum EL, Valvassori GE. Further studies on the effects of magnetic resonance imaging fields on middle ear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1990;99(10 Pt 1):801–4.
Shellock FG, Schatz CJ. Metallic otologic implants: in vitro assessment of ferromagnetism at 1.5 T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:279–81.
Hirsch BE, Weissman JL, Curtin HD, Kamerer DB. Imaging of ossicular prostheses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;111:494–6.
Nogueira M, Shellock FG. Otologic bioimplants: Ex vivo assessment of ferromagnetism and artifacts at 1.5 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:1472–3.
Knox GW, Reitan H. Shape-memory stapes prosthesis for otosclerosis surgery. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1340–6.
Thelen A, Bauknecht HC, Asbach P, Schrom T. Behavior of metal implants used in ENT surgery in 7 tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:900–5.
Martin AD, Driscoll CL, Wood CP, Felmlee JP. Safety evaluation of titanium middle ear prostheses at 3.0 tesla. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;132:537–42.
Williams MD, Antonelli PJ, Williams LS, Moorhead JE. Middle ear prosthesis displacement in high-strength magnetic fields. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:158–61.
Tohme SM, Karkas AA, Romanos BH. Safety of MRI with metallic middle ear implants. J Med Liban 2003;51:127–31.
Fritsch MH, Gutt JJ. Ferromagnetic movements of middle ear implants and stapes prostheses in a 3-T magnetic resonance field. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:225–30.
Rangheard AS, Marsot-Dupuch K, Mark AS, Meyer B, Tubiana JM. Postoperative complications in otospongiosis: Usefulness of MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1171–8.
Vincent R, Rovers M, Zingade N, et al. Revision stapedotomy: Operative findings and hearing results. A prospective study of 652 cases from the Otology-Neurotology Database. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:875–82.
Lin RJ, Krall R, Westerberg BD, Chadha NK, Chau JK. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk factors for sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adults. Laryngoscope 2012;122:624–35.
Azadarmaki R, Tubbs R, Chen DA, Shellock FG. MRI information for commonly used otologic implants: Review and update. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;150:512–9.