Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33386972›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2021

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

Martin Leinung, Andreas G Loth, Michaela Kroth, Iris Burck, Timo Stöver, Silke Helbig

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Prospective study on magnetic resonance imaging in cochlear implant patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin LeinungDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. martin.leinung@kgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9468-2775
Andreas G LothDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Michaela KrothDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Iris BurckInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany.
Timo StöverDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Silke HelbigDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFor 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

methodsAs 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionEven 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.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetsSurgical SpongesCochlear implantCompression bandageForce measurementMagnet dislocationMR imaging

Identifiers

PMID33386972
OpenAlexW3116112832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.