A review of the safety of MRI in cochlear implant patients with retained magnets

Srinivasan, Ramya; So, Clara; Amin, Nikul; Jaikaransingh, Dominic; D’Arco, Felice; Nash, Robert

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2019.06.011

Cited by 41 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been reported in the literature that HIs, such as cochlear implants (CIs), auditory brainstem implants (ABIs), middle ear implants, or bone conduction devices, are associated with unwanted complications during an MRI scan. These complications include large artefacts or distortions on the MR image, distortion or dislocation of the implant magnet, weakening of the implant magnet, demagnetization, or an increase in temperature in the vicinity of the implant [3,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unsurprisingly, hearing implant (HI) recipients are likely to require at least one MRI scan in their lifetime. Furthermore, with people receiving a HI at a younger age and considering the possibility of additional health complications that are associated with hearing loss, such as diseases of the inner ear, vestibular schwannomas, or neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2), the number of MRI scans that are required may be even higher [ 3 ]. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the safety of a HI recipient whilst undergoing an MRI scan.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two-phase survey on the frequency of use and safety of MRI for hearing implant recipients

Heyning

Mertens

Topsakal

et al. 2021

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often used to visualize and diagnose soft tissues. Hearing implant (HI) recipients are likely to require at least one MRI scan during their lifetime. However, the MRI scanner can interact with the implant magnet, resulting in complications for the HI recipient. This survey, which was conducted in two phases, aimed to evaluate the safety and performance of MRI scans for individuals with a HI manufactured by MED-EL (MED-EL GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria). Methods A survey was developed and distributed in two phases to HEARRING clinics to obtain information about the use of MRI for recipients of MED-EL devices. Phase 1 focused on how often MRI is used in diagnostic imaging of the head region of the cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Phase 2 collected safety information about MRI scans performed on HI recipients. Results 106 of the 126 MRI scans reported in this survey were performed at a field strength of 1.5 T, on HI recipients who wore the SYNCHRONY CI or SYNCHRONY ABI. The head and spine were the most frequently imaged regions. 123 of the 126 scans were performed without any complications; two HI recipients experienced discomfort/pain. One recipient required reimplantation after an MRI was performed using a scanner that had not been approved for that implant. There was only one case that required surgical removal of the implant to reduce the imaging artefact. Conclusion Individuals with either a SYNCHRONY CI or SYNCHRONY ABI from MED-EL can safely undergo a 1.5 T MRI when it is performed according to the manufacturer’s safety policies and procedures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-phase survey on the frequency of use and safety of MRI for hearing implant recipients

Heyning

Mertens

Topsakal

et al. 2021

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first prototypes of cochlear implants (CIs) appeared no more than 60 years ago and since then, this technology has become a part of common clinical practice, offering perspectives to better life for people suffering from severe deafness [ 1 ]. Worldwide, the amount of CI recipients is currently estimated at 400,000 and continuously rises due to the expanding selection criteria [ 2 , 3 ]. Similarly, in the last decades, the increased advances and availability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have modified the diagnostic–therapeutic approach of substantial percentage of disorders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has opened a complex debate over CI–MRI compatibility. MRI requests are increasing at approximately 20% per year [ 2 ] and an estimated 6% of the population complains of a neurological condition likely to need MRI diagnosis at some point of its lifetime [ 4 ]. In CI recipients, MRI presents a number of concerns due to the interaction between the CI’s internal magnet and the complex MR environment: (1) displacement of the entire implant, or of the internal magnet, resulting in pain and device failure; (2) demagnetization or reversal of magnet polarity; and (3) presence of artifacts limiting the diagnostic value of MRI scans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2014, a CI manufacturer (Med-El, Innsbruck, Austria) released a CI model (Synchrony™) utilizing a single magnet, free to rotate in one axis, in order to allow alignment to the stronger magnetic induction field, “just like the needle of a compass” [ 6 , 7 ]. Minimizing the torque effects on the implant site, this innovation focused on the safety of CIs for up to 3 T MRI machines, without the need of head bandages or magnet removal [ 2 , 8 ]. Recently, Advanced Bionics AG (AB - Stäfa, Switzerland) released a CI model (HiRes™ Ultra 3D) equipped with a new generation of a magnet system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

MRI-induced artifact by a cochlear implant with a novel magnet system: an experimental cadaver study

Canzi

Aprile

Simoncelli

et al. 2020

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purposes To primarily evaluate MRI-induced effects for Ultra 3D cochlear implantation in human cadavers in terms of artifact generation and MR image quality. Methods Three human cadaveric heads were submitted to imaging after unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation. The 1.5 T MR examination protocol was chosen in accordance with our institutional protocol for the assessment of brain pathology. The maximal signal void size was measured according to each sequence and plane. Two experienced neuro-radiologists and one experienced otoneurosurgeon independently evaluated the MR image quality findings. A 4-point scale was used to describe the diagnostic usefulness of 14 brain structures. Results Shape and size of the artifacts were found to be highly related to MRI sequences and acquisition planes. MRI sequences and processing algorithms affected the ability to assess anatomical visibility. Image quality appeared either high or assessable for diagnostic purposes in 9 out of 14 of the ipsilateral structures, in at least one plane. Anatomical structures contralateral to the cochlear implant were highly visible in all conditions. Artifact intrusion clearly improved after application of metal artifact-reduction techniques. In the case of bilateral cochlear implant, a mutual interaction between the two implant magnets produced an additional artifact. Conclusions We performed the first cadaver study aimed at systematically evaluating the MRI-induced artifacts produced by a cochlear implant with a novel four bar magnet system. Specific brain structures can be assessable for diagnostic purposes under 1.5 T MRI, with the cochlear implant magnet in place.

show abstract

MRI‐Compatible, Transparent PEDOT:PSS Neural Implants for the Alleviation of Neuropathic Pain with Motor Cortex Stimulation

Cho,

Kim,

Dutta

et al. 2023

Adv Funct Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simultaneous monitoring of electrophysiology and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could guide the innovative diagnosis and treatment of various neurodegenerative diseases that are previously impossible. However, this technique is difficult because the existing metal‐based implantable neural interface for electrophysiology is not free from signal distortions from its intrinsic magnetic susceptibility while performing an MRI of the implanted area of the neural interface. Moreover, brain tissue heating from neural implants generated by the radiofrequency field from MRI poses potential hazards for patients. Previous studies with soft polymer‐based electrode arrays provide relatively suitable MRI compatibility but does not guarantee high‐resolution electrophysiological signal acquisition and stimulation performance. Here, MRI compatible, optically transparent flexible implantable device capable of electrophysiological multichannel mapping and electrical stimulation is introduced. Using the device, neuropathic pain (NP) relief with a 30‐channel electrophysiological mapping of the somatosensory area before and after motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in allodynia rats after noxious stimulation is confirmed. Additionally, artifact‐free manganese‐enhanced MRI of dramatic relief of pain‐related region activity by MCS is demonstrated. Furthermore, artifact‐free optogenetics with transgenic mice is also investigated by recording light‐evoked potentials. These results suggest a promising neuro‐prosthetic for analyzing and modulating spatiotemporal neurodynamic without MRI or optical modality resolution constraints.

show abstract

A review of the safety of MRI in cochlear implant patients with retained magnets

Cited by 41 publications

References 30 publications

Two-phase survey on the frequency of use and safety of MRI for hearing implant recipients

Two-phase survey on the frequency of use and safety of MRI for hearing implant recipients

MRI-induced artifact by a cochlear implant with a novel magnet system: an experimental cadaver study

MRI‐Compatible, Transparent PEDOT:PSS Neural Implants for the Alleviation of Neuropathic Pain with Motor Cortex Stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About