Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carlson ML (2020) Cochlear implantation in adults. N Engl J Med 382(16):1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1904407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Deep NL, Dowling EM, Jethanamest D, Carlson ML (2019) Cochlear implantation: an overview. J Neurol Surg Part B Skull base 80(2):169–177. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1669411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. von Ilberg CA, Baumann U, Kiefer J, Tillein J, Adunka OF (2011) Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: a review of the first decade. Audiol Neuro-otol 16(Suppl 2):1–30. https://doi.org/10.1159/000327765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rinck P. Magnetic resonance in medicine. A critical introduction. Published online 2018

  5. Bundesamt S. Fallpauschalenbezogene Krankenhausstatistik (DRG-Statistik) Diagnosen, Prozeduren und Fallpauschalen der vollstationären Patientinnen und Patienten in Krankenhäusern 2008. Published online 2009.

  6. Bundesamt S. Fallpauschalenbezogene krankenhausstatistik (DRG-Statistik) operationen und prozeduren der vollstationären patientinnen und Patienten in Krankenhäusern (4-Steller). Published online 2019.

  7. Shew M, Wichova H, Lin J, Ledbetter LN, Staecker H (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging with cochlear implants and auditory brainstem implants: Are we truly practicing MRI safety? The Laryngosc Published online. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim B, Kim J, Park J, Kim S, Kim H, Choi J (2015) Adverse events and discomfort during magnetic resonance imaging in cochlear implant recipients. JAMA Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 141(1):45–52. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2014.2926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carlson ML, Neff BA, Link MJ et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging with cochlear implant magnet in place: safety and imaging quality. Otol Neurotol. 36(6):965–971. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Azadarmaki R, Tubbs R, Chen DA, Shellock FG (2013) MRI information for commonly used otologic implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 150(4):512–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599813518306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Posner D, Scott A, Polite C, Lustig LR (2010) External magnet displacement in cochlear implants: causes and management. Otol Neurotol. 31(1):88–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181c2a0c4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Majdani O, Leinung M, Rau T et al (2008) Demagnetization of cochlear implants and temperature changes in 3.0T MRI environment. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(6):833–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2008.07.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hassepass F, Stabenau V, Maier W et al (2014) Revision surgery due to magnet dislocation in cochlear implant patients: an emerging complication. Otol Neurotol 35(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182a5d2c5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Leong WJCJ, Yuen HW (2018) Dislocation of cochlear implant magnet during 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging despite head bandaging, and its repositioning using an endoscopic approach. J laryngol Otol 132(10):943–945. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215118001421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grupe G, Wagner J, Hofmann S et al (2017) Prevalence and complications of MRI scans of cochlear implant patients: English version. HNO 65(Suppl 1):35–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-016-0129-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tam YC, Lee JWY, Gair J et al (2020) Performing MRI scans on cochlear implant and auditory brainstem implant recipients: review of 14.5 years experience. Otol Neurotol 41(5):e556–e562. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leinung M, Loth A, Gröger M et al (2020) Cochlear implant magnet dislocation after MRI: surgical management and outcome. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277(5):1297–1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05826-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nospes S, Brockmann MA, Läßig A. MRT bei patienten mit hörimplantaten mit magnetausstattung—ein update. Der Radiologe. Published online 2018:1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-018-0462-9

  19. Erhardt JB, Fuhrer E, Gruschke OG et al (2018) Should patients with brain implants undergo MRI? J Neural Eng 15(4):041002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aab4e4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gubbels SP, McMenomey SO (2006) Safety study of the cochlear nucleus® 24 device with internal magnet in the 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner. The Laryngoscope. 116(6):865–871. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLG.0000216807.03225.CE

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cass ND, Honce JM, O’Dell AL, Gubbels SP (2019) First MRI with new cochlear implant with rotatable internal magnet system and proposal for standardization of reporting magnet-related artifact size. Otol Neurotol 40(7):883–891. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Young NM, Hoff SR, Ryan M (2020) Impact of cochlear implant with diametric magnet on imaging access, safety, and clinical care. The Laryngoscope Published online. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wild C, Allum J, Probst R, Abels D, Fischer C, Bodmer D (2010) Magnet displacement: a rare complication following cochlear implantation. Euro Archives Oto-rhino-Laryngol 267(1):57–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-009-1017-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Heller JW, Brackmann DE, Tucci DL, Nyenhuis JA, Chou CK (1996) Evaluation of MRI compatibility of the modified nucleus multichannel auditory brainstem and cochlear implants. Am J Otol 17(5):724–729

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Teissl C, Kremser C, Hochmair ES, Hochmair-Desoyer IJ (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging and cochlear implants: compatibility and safety aspects. J Magn Reson Imaging 9(1):26–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199901)9:1%3c26::aid-jmri4%3e3.0.co;2-h

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Martin Leinung, Andreas G. Loth, Michaela Kroth, Timo Stöver & Silke Helbig

  2. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany

    Iris Burck

Authors
  1. Martin Leinung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas G. Loth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michaela Kroth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Iris Burck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Timo Stöver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Silke Helbig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Leinung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to disclose by the authors.

Ethical approval

The submitted manuscript does not report data derived from experimental or clinical observations in human or animal subjects.

Informed consent

For the same reason, informed consent was neither necessary nor applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leinung, M., Loth, A.G., Kroth, M. et al. Comparison of bandaging techniques to prevent cochlear implant magnet displacement following MRI. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278, 4209–4216 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06504-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06504-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation