A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cochlear Implant Recipients. | LitMetric

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Otol Neurotol

*Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago†Department of Medical Imaging, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago‡Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago§Knowles Hearing Center, Northwestern University School of Communication, Evanston, Illinois.

Published: July 2016

Objective: Determine the diagnostic usefulness of postimplantation 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and review magnet-related MRI complications.

Study Design: Retrospective chart review with additional review of MRIs.

Setting: Tertiary care children's hospital.

Patients: Twelve patients who underwent MRI after receiving a cochlear implant (CI).

Intervention: One or more episodes of 1.5 T MRI with CI in place.

Main Outcome Measures: Occurrence of magnet-related complications; whether imaging was clinically useful.

Results: The 12 patients underwent 23 episodes of MRI, including 13 episodes in 11 patients (18 ears) during which a magnet was present and 17 studies were obtained. Complications related to the magnet occurred during 4 of the 13 imaging episodes (30.8%), all during body or spine studies. Magnet torsion with reversal of polarity occurred in three devices; reduced magnet strength in one; and displacement of the magnet from its housing in one. One patient required surgical magnet replacement, whereas other headpiece retention problems were resolved without surgery. All studies but one brain with bilateral magnets were clinically useful.

Conclusions: CI patients who undergo MRI with a magnet in situ may experience complications, especially when imaged below the head. Most complications may be resolved without surgery. Diagnostic usefulness of non-cranial MRI is not likely to be limited by presence of the magnet, while a magnet may prevent clinically useful brain imaging. Obtaining MRI with the magnet in situ avoids the cost and risks associated with multiple surgeries to remove and replace the magnet or the entire implant.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001053DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

magnet
11
magnetic resonance
8
resonance imaging
8
cochlear implant
8
mri
8
patients underwent
8
resolved surgery
8
mri magnet
8
magnet situ
8
imaging
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!