Impact of Cochlear Implant With Diametric Magnet on Imaging Access, Safety, and Clinical Care

Risk of magnetic resonance imaging-induced magnet dislocation for different types of cochlear implants: a single-center retrospective study

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

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

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 (χ²₍₁₎ = 26.86; p < 0.001; ϕ = 0.40) or the Synchrony (χ²₍₁₎ = 13.42; p < 0.001; ϕ = 0.34).

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.

The experience of auditory implant recipients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: Factors associated with pain

OBJECTIVE

Many patients with cochlear implants (CI) and auditory brainstem implants (ABI) require magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following implantation. This study explores the patient experience of MRI, identifying factors associated with pain, and the effect of interventions designed to enhance comfort and safety.

METHODS

A prospective observational case series from a tertiary referral unit. Tight head bandaging ± local anaesthetic injection (devices with non-MRI-compatible magnets) or observation alone (implants with MRI-compatible magnets) were employed for 1.5 T MRI of consecutive adult patients with CI or ABI without magnet removal. Pain was recorded via visual analogue scale (1 = no pain, 5 = extreme pain) at three time points; (1) baseline, (2) head bandage applied (3) during scanning. Patient age, device type, body area imaged and total scan time were recorded as variables, alongside adverse events.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 227 MRI scans (34 patients with ABI, 32 with CI). In patients managed with bandaging, pain score after bandaging but prior to scanning (median 2.2) did not differ from pain during scanning (2.1), but both were significantly higher than baseline (1.4, both P ≤ 0.001). Scanning areas other than the head/cervical spine was associated with higher pain scores (P = 0.036). Pain during MRI differed between different manufacturers implants (P ≤ 0.001). Adverse events occurred in 8/227 scans (3.5%), none occurring with devices containing an MRI-compatible magnet.

CONCLUSION

MRI scanning with auditory implant magnets in situ is safe and well tolerated by patients.

Prospective Evaluation of 3 T MRI Effect on Residual Hearing Function of Cochlea Implantees

Introduction: The approval process for MRI safety of implants includes physical observations and an experimental evaluation in artificial settings to simulate the in vivo effect. This contains the observation of temperature changes and artificial current generation by the magnetic field. From these findings, the safety of an implant and its effect on the patient can be estimated. MRI safety is based on an in vivo evaluation of adverse events after the approval process, but an actual analysis of the effect on different tissues is not followed. The effect of MRI scanning in cochlea implantees on their residual hearing as the correlate of the hair cell function is so far unknown, therefore the aim of the present study was to observe the effect of 3 T MRI on the residual hearing of cochlea implantees. Material and Methods: In this prospective study, we performed a 3 T MRI T2 2D MS Drive sequence in eight cochlea-implanted ears. Before and after the MRI scan, a bone conduction pure tone audiogram (BC PTA) was performed. All cochlea implantees had a pre-scanning threshold of low frequency residual hearing between 20 dB and 65 dB. Results: Low frequency mean residual hearing was not affected by the 3 T T2 2D MS Drive sequence. We observed a pre-scanning threshold at 250 Hz of 42.9 (SD 3.9) dB and for 500 Hz 57.1 (SD 6.4) dB. Post-scanning BC PTA was for 250 Hz 42.1 (SD 3.9) dB and for 500 Hz 57.1 (SD 5.7) dB. Conclusion: 3 T MRI scanning has no significant functional effect on the hair cells in cochlea implantees in low frequencies with a T2 2D MS Drive sequence.

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

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 off-the-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.

Safety of active auditory implants in magnetic resonance imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the gold standard for the diagnosis of many pathologies. Using MRI in patients with auditory implants can however raise concerns due to mutual interactions between the implant and imaging device, resulting in potential patient risks. Several implant manufacturers have been working towards more MRI safe devices. Older devices are however often labelled for more stringent conditions, possibly creating confusion with patients and professionals. With this myriad of different devices that are implanted in patients for lifetimes of at least 20 years, it is crucial that both patients and professionals have a clear understanding of the safety of their devices. This work aims at providing an exhaustive overview on the MRI safety of active auditory implants. The available industry standards that are followed by manufacturers are outlined and an overview of the latest scientific developments focusing on the last five years is provided. In addition, based on the analysis of the adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and in literature within the past ten years, a systematic review of the most commonly occurring issues for patients with auditory implants in the MRI environment is provided. Results indicate that despite the release of more MRI conditional active hearing implants on the market, adverse events still occur. An extensive overview is provided on the MRI safety of active auditory implants, aiming to increase the understanding of the topic for healthcare professionals and contribute to safer scanning conditions for patients.

Comparison of bandaging techniques to prevent cochlear implant magnet displacement following MRI

INTRODUCTION

For cochlear implants (CI) with removable magnets, a pressure bandage usually is recommended during MR imaging to avoid magnet dislocation. Nevertheless, this complication is regularly observed despite applying a pressure bandage. The aim of this study was to compare various bandaging techniques to avoid magnet displacement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As an experimental model a force measuring stand was developed and validated, on which the process of magnet dislocation could be simulated on a cochlear implant. In a test series with six combinations of cohesive and elastic bandages with different counter pressure elements (CPE), the forces required to induce magnet dislocation against the resistance of a compression bandage was determined. In addition, the inter- and intraindividual variability of the compression bandages was measured for ten different users.

RESULTS

The cohesive bandage had the lowest average holding force of 10.70 N. The elastic bandage developed more than four times the retention force of the cohesive bandage (44.88 N, p < 0.01). By adding a CPE, these values could be increased highly significantly up to factor 3. The optimum combination in terms of fixation force against magnet dislocation was an elastic bandage plus a cylindrical CPE (76.60 N). The data showed a high interindividual variability.

CONCLUSION

Even though most CI manufacturers now offer 3T-conditional implants, a pressure bandage will have to be applied to thousands of patients with previous implant generations to prevent magnet dislocation. We examined for the first time force measurements to compare different bandaging techniques by detecting the holding force of the CI magnet. We were able to identify an optimized combination of a bandage and a CPE to immobilize the CI magnet. However, our data also demonstrated a significant scatter amongst different examiners. Although our data provide valuable data for potential clinical application, future development of the dressing technique is required for human use.