External Magnet Displacement in Cochlear Implants

Posner, David; Scott, Angela; Polite, Colleen; Lustig, Lawrence R.

doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e3181c2a0c4

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of our patients with BTE devices, only 2.4% experienced long-term retention concerns. This is similar to the rate of complication as reported by Posner et al (8) where 3% of patients with axial magnets had retention difficulties lasting longer than 6 weeks. Overall, retention events with BTE sound processors were rare and did not occur more frequently with diametric magnets than with axial magnets.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Patient variables thought to influence retention events include sex, BMI, age, and hair type (4,5,8,9). Female patients represented 42% of our group and 33% of those with retention events.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is not a standardized method of measuring and recording these variables, so consistent reporting would prove difficult. None of the patients in this cohort attempted shaving the magnet site, which has been suggested to improve retention (4,8). With shaving, there are potential cosmetic concerns and the requirement of frequent shaving, which may be difficult to maintain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Preoperative Imaging of Temporoparietal Scalp Thickness Predicts Off-the-Ear Sound Processor Retention in Cochlear Implants With Diametric Magnets

Adkins¹,

Henrie²,

Nassiri³

et al. 2022

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine if temporoparietal scalp thickness assessed via preoperative imaging predicts retention events in patients who have cochlear implants with diametric magnets and various sound processor types. Study Design: Retrospective chart and radiological review. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: One hundred forty-three adult patients who have cochlear implants with diametric magnets. Main Outcome Measures: Skin flap thickness, retention events, body mass index (BMI), and magnet strength. Results: Of 42 patients with the most recent generation offthe-ear sound processor (OTE2), 13 (31.0%) had retention events. Of patients with a temporoparietal scalp thickness less than 8 mm, all patients could ultimately retain the device, though one of 26 was noted to have tenuous retention. Of patients with 8 to 10 mm skin flaps, 3 of 6 (50%) could not retain the device, and with more than 10 mm skin flaps, 7 of 10 (70%) could not retain the device. In the more than 10 mm group, two additional patients could not either retain the device at initial activation or were noted to have tenuous retention. Of 124 patients with behind-the-ear (BTE) sound processors, only 2 (1.6%) could not retain the device at initial activation, and 3 (2.4%) exhibited tenuous retention after 3 months of device use. Results from the first generation off-the-ear sound processor (OTE1) are also reported. Conclusions: Temporoparietal scalp thickness measured by preoperative imaging is associated with processor retention for patients with the OTE2 sound processor and diametric magnets. All patients with less than 8 mm scalp thickness could retain the OTE2, while 50% of patients with 8 to 10 mm scalp thickness and 70% with more than 10 mm scalp thickness could not retain the device. Patients should be counseled regarding their sound processor choice and/or considered candidates for skin flap reduction or other intervention as indicated. Retention events with BTE processors are rare.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preoperative Imaging of Temporoparietal Scalp Thickness Predicts Off-the-Ear Sound Processor Retention in Cochlear Implants With Diametric Magnets

Adkins¹,

Henrie²,

Nassiri³

et al. 2022

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the skull of a child develops, the magnet is placed at a greater angle which is more prone to even trivial trauma. [ 7 ] This was also the cause in our patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…To felicitate magnetic resonance imaging in the postoperative period, magnet is kept in silicon casing which can be displaced due to trauma or either improper placement. [ 7 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implant device failure in the postoperative period: An institutional analysis

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:As the cochlear implant (CI) surgeries are on rise, there is a compelling need to understand its long-term complications and revision surgery protocols. Our experience in the management of CI devices failure is shared in this paper.Aim:To review the experience in patients who underwent CI device manipulation/explanation in terms of failure rate, etiology, surgical considerations, and preoperative and postoperative auditory and speech outcome.Study Design:This was a retrospective study.Materials and Methods:A retrospective study of 250 patients (201 children and 49 adults) with normal cochlea at a tertiary care center from June 2004 to June 2014 was done. All cases were implanted multichannel devices via Veria technique of CI surgery. Preoperative assessment, surgical considerations, and postoperative auditory and speech outcomes were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative auditory/speech outcomes were analyzed using Category of Auditory Perception (CAP) and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) scores.Results:Reimplantation rate was 4%. The causes of revision CI surgery were hard device failure (n = 3), surgical site infection (n = 3), magnet displacement (n = 2), and electrode extrusion (n = 2). In one patient, recurrent cutaneous infection on the implanted site ultimately resulted in reimplantation in the opposite ear after multiple surgical interventions on the same side. The preoperative and postoperative CAP and SIR scores showed improvement in the postoperative period with P < 0.05 as compared with the paired t-test.Conclusions:Preoperative counseling for device failure should always be emphasized. The success rate is high in revision surgery with good performance in the postoperative audiological outcome. There is a compelling need for an agreed international definition of CI failure and the adoption of uniform reporting protocols.

show abstract