Cochlear implant (CI) is a reliable solution to restore hearing in people with severe‐to‐profound hearing loss. The device is made up of internal and external components linked transcutaneously through a magnet that may rise specific issues in people who must undergo brain magnetic resonance (MRI) due to neurological diseases. The description of a case of a CI implantee needing MRI has given us the opportunity to highlight the differences that can be encountered among different neuropathies, either acute or chronic, with the aim of shedding some light for finding a common protocol when facing this important and frequent clinical issue. In particular, the removal of the magnet prior to performing an MRI exam is mandatory for brain diseases ipsilateral to the implanted side, whereas for contralateral side lesions it is less important when using apposite bandage kits. Laryngoscope, 131:E576–E580, 2021

No abstract

Background: The bone conductive implants (BCI) are nowadays a reliable alternative for rehabilitation of specific forms of hearing loss, i.e. conductive, mixed or single sided deafness (SSD). Aims/Objective: To analyse the various factors in play when considering an auditory rehabilitation with a bone-conductive device (BCI). Materials and Methods: The clinical charts of subjects who underwent BCI application at the same Implanting Center from 2005 to 2018 were retrieved analysing also the reason for eventual explantation and the alternative option (transition) for hearing rehabilitation.

No abstract

Objective Middle ear cholesteatoma may lead to the erosion of the bony structures of the temporal bone, possibly causing intra- and extracranial complications. Surgical treatment is mandatory, and due to possible residual/recurrent disease, the use of reliable diagnostic methods is essential. Our study aimed to evaluate the reliability of non-EPI DW-MRI for the follow-up of cholesteatoma after surgery. Methods In a study group including 53 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for cholesteatoma at a tertiary university hospital, an imaging protocol was applied, including non-echo planar diffusion-weighted imaging magnetic resonance (MR) at 1 month after surgery and then at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Based on the combination of preoperative assessment and intraoperative findings, the study group was divided into 3 subgroups: petrous bone (PB) cholesteatoma, complicated cholesteatoma and uncomplicated cholesteatoma. PB cholesteatoma patients were treated by a subtotal petrosectomy, whereas complicated and uncomplicated cholesteatoma patients were treated either by a canal wall up procedure or a retrograde (inside-out) canal wall down technique with bone obliteration technique (BOT). Results The results show that patients who had positive findings on non-EPI DW-MRI scans 1 month after surgery consequently underwent revision surgery during which residual cholesteatoma was noted. All the patients who displayed negative findings on non-EPI DWI-MRI scan at 1 month after surgery did not show the presence of a lesion at the 6- and 12-month evaluations. The 6 patients who displayed residual cholesteatoma at the 1-month follow-up presented dehiscence/exposure of the facial nerve canal at the primary surgery, mostly at the level of the labyrinthine segment. Conclusion Non-EPI DW-MRI is a useful and reliable tool for follow-up cholesteatoma surgery, and when applied early, as was done in the protocol proposed in the present study, this tool may be used to detect the presence of residual cholesteatoma in some patients, prompting the planning of early revision surgery.