Artifact Reduction 3.0 T MRI in Cochlear Implantation Recipient With Diametrically Bipolar Magnets
- PMID: 40165611
- DOI: 10.1002/lary.32114
Artifact Reduction 3.0 T MRI in Cochlear Implantation Recipient With Diametrically Bipolar Magnets
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to explore the clinical results of the MAVRIC-SL sequence in 3.0 Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination of cochlear implant recipients with diametrically bipolar magnets.
Study design: Retrospective study.
Methods: Six consecutive patients implanted with diametrically bipolar magnets received a 3.0 T MRI for necessary reexaminations. The artifact volumes (cm3) and maximum artifact areas (cm2) were measured before and after applying the MAVRIC-SL. Adverse events, including discomfort or pain (measured using VAS), skin temperatures, and magnet displacement, were also recorded.
Results: All enrolled patients completed the MRI scans. Significant reductions in artifact volumes and maximum areas were observed with the MAVRIC-SL sequence compared to others (p < 0.05 to < 0.01). Targeted disease regions, as well as the inner ear anatomy, were clearly revealed with MAVRIC-SL. One patient (aged 12) reported pain (VAS score: 8) during the scan, while others (aged 10-36) did not experience discomfort. Neither displacement nor tilt of the internal magnet was seen.
Conclusion: The MAVRIC-SL sequence represents a feasible and safe solution for 3 T MRI in cochlear implanters with diametrically bipolar magnets, providing a new option to meet clinical needs.
Keywords: MAVRIC‐SL; 3.0 T MRI; artifact reduction; cochlear implantation; diametrically bipolar magnets.
© 2025 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Similar articles
-
Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Cochlear Implants without Magnet Removal: A Radiology-Administered Protocol to Enhance Operational Efficiency and Improve Workflow.Otol Neurotol. 2023 Aug 1;44(7):664-671. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003898. Epub 2023 Jun 6. Otol Neurotol. 2023. PMID: 37278159
-
Systematic Review of the Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Diametric Magnet Cochlear Implants.Otol Neurotol. 2025 Sep 1;46(8):918-923. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004556. Epub 2025 Jun 3. Otol Neurotol. 2025. PMID: 40467098
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model.Health Technol Assess. 2009 Sep;13(44):1-330. doi: 10.3310/hta13440. Health Technol Assess. 2009. PMID: 19799825
-
Cochlear implants and 1.5 T MRI scans: the effect of diametrically bipolar magnets and screw fixation on pain.J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Feb 5;47(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s40463-017-0252-9. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018. PMID: 29402322 Free PMC article.
-
Chronic Electro-Acoustic Stimulation May Interfere With Electric Threshold Recovery After Cochlear Implantation in the Aged Guinea Pig.Ear Hear. 2024 Nov-Dec 01;45(6):1554-1567. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001545. Epub 2024 Jul 12. Ear Hear. 2024. PMID: 38992863 Free PMC article.
References
-
- S. E. Pross, B. K. Ward, J. D. Sharon, H. M. Weinreich, N. Aygun, and H. W. Francis, “A Prospective Study of Pain From Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Cochlear Implant Magnets In Situ,” Otology & Neurotology 39, no. 2 (2018): e80–e86.
-
- I. Todt, A. Tittel, A. Ernst, P. Mittmann, and S. Mutze, “Pain Free 3 T MRI Scans in Cochlear Implantees,” Otology & Neurotology 38, no. 10 (2017): e401–e404.
-
- J. M. Mitchell, “Utilization Trends for Advanced Imaging Procedures: Evidence From Individuals With Private Insurance Coverage in California,” Medical Care 46, no. 5 (2008): 460–466.
-
- R. Srinivasan, C. W. So, N. Amin, D. Jaikaransingh, F. D'Arco, and R. Nash, “A Review of the Safety of MRI in Cochlear Implant Patients With Retained Magnets,” Clinical Radiology 74, no. 12 (2019): 972.e9–972.e16.
-
- D. E. Bestourous, L. Davidson, and B. K. Reilly, “A Review of Reported Adverse Events in MRI‐Safe and MRI‐Conditional Cochlear Implants,” Otology & Neurotology 43, no. 1 (2022): 42–47.
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical