Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37707616›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 Surgery2024

Prospective study on magnetic resonance imaging in cochlear implant patients.

Silke Helbig, Neele Thiemann, Elke Hattingen, Andreas Loth, Timo Stöver, Martin Leinung

Open access · hybridAbstract read
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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Silke HelbigDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany. silke.helbig@kgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9666-4028
Neele ThiemannDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Elke HattingenDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Andreas LothDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Timo StöverDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Martin LeinungDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMonocentric, prospective study to investigate whether concomitant support of cochlear implant (CI) patients by CI-trained otolaryngologists and application of a standardized head bandage can minimize potential complications during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

methodsThirty-seven patients with 46 CIs underwent MRI with a prophylactic head bandage. All participants and the otolaryngologist at the CI center completed pre- and post-MRI questionnaires documenting body region scanned, duration of MRI and bandage wear, field strength during the scan, and any complications. If pain was experienced, it was assessed using a visual analog scale (1-10).

resultsMRI was performed without adverse events in 37.8% of cases. Magnet dislocation requiring surgical revision occurred in 2% of cases. Pain was reported in 86% of cases, often due to the tightness of the dressing. Patients with rotating, MRI-compatible magnets reported significantly less pain than participants with older-generation implants. In 11% of cases, the MRI was discontinued.

conclusionSerious complications during MRI in cochlear implant patients are rare. Pain is the most common adverse event, probably mainly due to the tight bandage required by most implant types. With newer generations of magnets, these patients experience less pain, no dislocation of the magnets, and no need for bandaging. Although magnet dislocation cannot be completely prevented in older generations of implants, it appears to be reduced by good patient management, which recommends examination under the guidance of physicians trained in the use of hearing implants.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsAgedHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetsPainProspective StudiesCochlear implantComplicationsHead bandageMagnet dislocationMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID37707616
PMCPMC10858110
OpenAlexW4386725460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.