To review information on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) issues for commonly used otologic implants.
Data Sources
Manufacturing companies, National Library of Medicine’s online database, and an additional online database (www.MRIsafety.com).
Review Methods
A literature review of the National Library of Medicine’s online database with focus on MRI issues for otologic implants was performed. The MRI information on implants provided by manufacturers was reviewed.
Results
Baha and Ponto Pro osseointegrated implants’ abutment and fixture and the implanted magnet of the Sophono Alpha 1 and 2 abutment-free systems are approved for 3-Tesla magnetic resonance (MR) systems. The external processors of these devices are MR Unsafe. Of the implants tested, middle ear ossicular prostheses, including stapes prostheses, except for the 1987 McGee prosthesis, are MR Conditional for 1.5-Tesla (and many are approved for 3-Tesla) MR systems. Cochlear implants with removable magnets are approved for patients undergoing MRI at 1.5 Tesla after magnet removal. The MED-EL PULSAR, SONATA, CONCERT, and CONCERT PIN cochlear implants can be used in patients undergoing MRI at 1.5 Tesla with application of a protective bandage. The MED-EL COMBI 40+ can be used in 0.2-Tesla MR systems. Implants made from nonmagnetic and nonconducting materials are MR Safe.
Conclusion
Knowledge of MRI guidelines for commonly used otologic implants is important. Guidelines on MRI issues approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are not always the same compared with other parts of the world.
Implications for Practice
This monograph provides a current reference for physicians on MRI issues for commonly used otologic implants.
ShellockFG. Reference Manual for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Implants and Devices: 2013 Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Biomedical Research Publishing Group; 2013.
2.
WagnerJErnstATodtI. Magnet resonance imaging safety of the Vibrant Soundbridge system: a review. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32:1040-1046.
3.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International. Standard Practice for Marking Medical Devices and Other Items for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance Environment. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2013. Designation: F2503-13.
4.
ShellockFWoodsTCruesJ. MR labeling information for implants and devices: explanation of terminology. Radiology. 2009;253:26-30.
5.
ShellockFGSpinazziA. MRI safety update 2008: part 2, screening patients for MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1140-1149.
6.
ShellockFGMeeposLStapletonM. In vitro magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of ossicular implants at 3 T. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33:871-877.
7.
FritschMHMoiserKM. MRI compatibility issues in otology. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;15:335-340.
8.
FritschMH. MRI scanners and stapes prosthesis. Otol Neurotol. 2007;28:733-738.
9.
AppelbaumELValvassoriGE. Further studies on the effects of magnetic resonance imaging fields on middle ear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1990;99:801-804.
10.
FritschMHGauttJJ. Ferromagnetic movements of middle ear implants and stapes prostheses in a 3-T magnetic resonance field. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26:225-230.
11.
SymsMPetermanG. Magnetic resonance imaging of stapes prostheses. Am J Otol. 2000;21:494-498.
12.
ApplebaumELValvassoriGE. Effects of magnetic resonance imaging fields on stapedectomy prostheses. Arch Orolaryngol. 1985;111:820-821.
13.
MattucciKFSetzenMHymanR. The effect of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging on metallic middle ear prostheses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;94:441-443.
14.
LeonJAGabrieleOF. Middle ear prosthesis: significance of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1987;5:405-406.
15.
ShellockFGSchatzCJ. Metallic otologic implants: in vitro assessment of ferromagnetism at 1.5 T. Am J Neuroradiol. 1991;12:279-281.
16.
WildDCHeadKHallDA. Safe magnetic resonance scanning of patients with metallic middle ear implants. Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31:508-510.
17.
MartinADDriscollCLWoodCP. Safety evaluation of titanium middle ear prostheses at 3.0 Tesla. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;132:537-542.
18.
WilliamsMDAntonelliPJWilliamsLS. Middle ear prosthesis displacement in high strength magnetic fields. Otol Neurotol. 2001;22:158-161.
19.
FritschMHGuttJJNaumannIC. Magnetic properties of middle ear and stapes implants in a 9.4-T magnetic resonance field. Otol Neurotol. 2006;27:1064-1069.
20.
ShellockFGSawyer-GloverAM. The magnetic resonance environment and implants, devices, and materials. In: ShellockFG, ed. Magnetic Resonance Procedures: Health Effects and Safety. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2001:310-311.
TodtIWagnerJGoetzeR. MRI scanning in patients implanted with a Vibrant Soundbridge. Laryngoscope. 2011;121:1532-1535.
27.
CollettiVSoliSDCarnerM. Treatment of mixed hearing losses via implantation of a vibratory transducer on the round window. Int J Audiol. 2006;45:600-608.
28.
TodtIRademacherGWagnerF. MRI safety of the floating mass transducer. Otol Neurotol. 2010;9:1435-1440.
29.
JesacherMOKieferJZierhoferC. Torque measurements of the ossicular chain: implication on the MRI safety of the implant Vibrant Soundbridge. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31:676-680.
TognolaGParazziniMSibellaF. Electromagnetic interference and cochlear implants. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2007;43:241-247.
32.
BaumgartnerWDYoussefzadehSHamzaviJ. Clinical application of magnetic resonance imaging in 30 cochlear implant patients. Otol Neurotol. 2001;22:818-822.
33.
MigirovLWolfM. Magnet removal and reinsertion in a cochlear implant recipient undergoing brain MRI. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2013;75:1-5.
GubbelsSPMcMenomeySO. Safety study of the Cochlear Nucleus 24 device with internal magnet in the 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner. Laryngoscope. 2006;116:865-871.
37.
CraneBTGottschalkBKrautM. Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5T after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31:1215-1220.
38.
DeneuveSLoundonNLeboulangerN. Cochlear implant magnet displacement during magnetic resonance imaging. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29:789-790.
39.
CudaDMurriASuccoG. Focused tight dressing does not prevent cochlear implant magnet migration under 1.5 Tesla MRI. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2013;33:133-136.
40.
Di NardoWGiannantonioSSchinaiaL. Noninvasive management of cochlear implant’s inner magnet displacement after magnetic resonance. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:783-786.
41.
BrinsonGMChenDAArriagaMA. Endolymphatic mastoid shunt versus endolymphatic sac decompression for Ménière’s disease. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;136:415-421.
42.
AustinGFHartGR. Short term study of endolymphatic shunt operation. Arch Otolaryngol. 1965;65:359-364.
KlucznikRPCarrierDAPykaR. Placement of a ferromagnetic intracerebral aneurysm clip in a magnetic field with a fatal outcome. Radiology. 1993;187:855-856.
