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 t...
Saved in:
| Published in: | European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology Vol. 278; no. 11; pp. 4209 - 4216 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Berlin/Heidelberg
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
01-11-2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | 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 |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 0937-4477 1434-4726 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00405-020-06504-8 |