Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Annals of Otology and Neurotology 2019; 2(02): 51-55
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1708796
Original Article

MRI Pattern of Various Cochlear Implant Electrodes In Vivo

Holger Sudhoff
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Bielefeld University, Campus Mitte, Germany
,
Conrad Riemann
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Bielefeld University, Campus Mitte, Germany
2   Department of Radiology, Klinikum Bielefeld, Germany
,
Hans Björn Gehl
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Bielefeld University, Campus Mitte, Germany
,
Ingo Todt
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Bielefeld University, Campus Mitte, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Recent developments regarding cochlear implant magnets (e.g., a bipolar diametral magnet) and refined surgical technique (e.g., implant positioning) have made a significant impact on the relation between a cochlear implant and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI scanning has changed from a contraindication to a diagnostic tool. For the first time, a pain-free in vivo evaluation of the cochlea’s fluid state, following the insertion of an electrode, has become possible via MRI scanning. The aim of this study was to evaluate various cochlear implant electrodes’ MRI-specific patterns.

Materials and Methods In a retrospective study, we evaluated the MRI pattern of casting iron (CI) electrodes in a 3T T2 turbo spin echo (TSE) sequence after a surgery with Medel Flex 28, Flex 24, AB HFMS, and MRI at 1.5 T T2 TSE with the Oticon EVO array.

Results A generally different axial MRI pattern between the “lateral wall” electrodes and the “modiolar” electrodes at the basal turn could be observed. A difference in terms of electrode length/insertion depth could not be found at the present scan resolution. Electrode contacts have an impact on the MRI signal-diminishing pattern.

Conclusion At T2 sequences, an electrode design-specific MRI pattern can be observed.

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging - cochlear implant - electrode


Publication History

Article published online:
23 April 2020

© 2019. Indian Society of Otology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Aschendorff A, Kubalek R, Turowski B. et al. Quality control after cochlear implant surgery by means of rotational tomography. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26 (01) 34-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mittmann P, Ernst A, Todt I. Intraoperative electrophysiologic variations caused by the scalar position of cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (06) 1010-1014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Grupe G, Wagner J, Hofmann S. et al. [Prevalence and complications of MRI scans of cochlear implant patients: German version]. HNO 2016; 64 (03) 156-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hassepass F, Stabenau V, Maier W. et al. Revision surgery due to magnet dislocation in cochlear implant patients: an emerging complication. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (01) 29-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Walton J, Donnelly NP, Tam YC. et al. MRI without magnet removal in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients with cochlear and auditory brainstem implants. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (05) 821-825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Todt I, Rademacher G, Mittmann P, Wagner J, Mutze S, Ernst A. MRI artifacts and cochlear implant positioning at 3 T in vivo. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (06) 972-976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stratmann A, Mittmann P, Rademacher G. et al. MRI-based estimation of scalar cochlear-implant electrode position. BioMed Res Int 2017; 2017: 6372704
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Todt I, Tittel A, Ernst A, Mittmann P, Mutze S. Pain free 3 T MRI scans in cochlear implantees. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38 (10) e401-e404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tek F, Müller S, Boga E. et al. 3 T high resolution MRI based estimation of scalar cochlear implant electrode position. Acta Otol Ital 2019; 39: 1-5
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Mittmann P, Ernst A, Scholz S. et al. Cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness: observations in poor performers. Annals Otol Neurotol 2018; 1 (01) 18-22
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK. et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29 (07) 920-928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kim BG, Kim JW, Park JJ, Kim SH, Kim HN, Choi JY. Adverse events and discomfort during magnetic resonance imaging in cochlear implant recipients. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 141 (01) 45-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Crane BT, Gottschalk B, Kraut M, Aygun N, Niparko JK. Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (08) 1215-1220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Todt I, Rademacher G, Grupe G. et al. Cochlear implants and 1.5 T MRI scans: the effect of diametrically bipolar magnets and screw fixation on pain. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 47 (01) 11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Coffey RJ, Kalin R, Olsen JM. Magnetic resonance imaging conditionally safe neurostimulation leads: investigation of the maximum safe lead tip temperature. Neurosurgery 2014; 74 (02) 215-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar