ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess the type, frequency and impact of MRI-related complications in patients with cochlear implants (CI) and MRI indications in different body regions. METHODS: For that purpose, the institutional radiology database of a single tertiary hospital was searched for patients with a CI who underwent MRI between 2001 and 2018. The number of MRI examinations and complications were retrieved from the patient record. Examinations were categorized into five distinct body regions or combinations thereof. Records of CI artifacts in the head also included basic information on diagnostic image quality. RESULTS: Out of 1017 MRI database entries (examinations) of patients with a CI, 91 records were after implantation (71 patients) and 66 were attempted (no contraindications, 49 patients). In four cases (4/66, 6.1%), the magnet was dislocated and had to be replaced surgically. Three out of four severe complications occurred for examination regions outside the head. Thirteen MRI examinations were aborted due to pain (19.7%) and one because of artifacts-resulting in 48 scans (72.7%) completed successfully (36 patients). All cranial scans featured device artifacts in all sequences, but the majority of them did not affect proper imaging diagnostics in the respective region. CONCLUSION: This retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with MRI-conditional cochlear implants shows that MRI-related complications were common, at least in models with a fixed magnet, despite appropriate precautions and compliance with the manufacturers' guidelines. MRI examinations of CI patients should therefore be indicated strictly until the exact causes have been clarified.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare audiologic results according to vestibular aqueduct (VA) diameter in patients who have undergone cochlear implantation and were diagnosed with LVAS. METHODS: This was a retrospective study detailing the outcomes of 18 patients with LVAS and 18 patients undergone cochlear implants. VA diameter was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Categories of Auditory Perception (CAP) and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) were assessed in all patients, and speech audiometry, including speech recognition thresholds (SRT) and word discrimination scores, was applied for all subjects who were able to perform these tests. All audiologic parameters were compared between patients with and without LVAS, and the relationship of these parameters with VA diameter was investigated. RESULTS: The control group consisted of 18 subjects (5 males, 13 females), ranging in age between 2 and 34 years (mean 13.17 ± 8.97 years). The research group consisted of 18 subjects (8 males, 10 females), ranging in age between 2 and 35 years (mean 13.28 ± 8.96 years). There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of SIR and CAP pre-post differences (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05), with higher averages in the LVAS group. No statistically significant correlations were found between VA diameter on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging and the audiologic variables collected. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LVAS benefit from cochlear implant surgery and VA parameters do not affect audiologic parameters.
