A Systematic Review of Cochlear Implant-Related Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifact: Implications for Clinical Imaging

被引:2
|
作者
Berry, Joseph M. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,8 ]
Tansey, James B. [1 ,2 ]
Wu, Lin [5 ]
Choudhri, Asim [6 ,7 ]
Yawn, Robert J. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
MacDonald, Charles Bruce [1 ,2 ]
Richard, Celine [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Le Bonheur Childrens Hosp, Dept Pediat Otolaryngol, Memphis, TN USA
[2] Univ Tennessee, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Memphis, TN USA
[3] St Jude Childrens Res Hosp, Dept Pediat Otolaryngol, Memphis, TN USA
[4] Univ Mississippi, Med Ctr, Sch Med, Jackson, MS USA
[5] Univ Tennessee, Hlth Sci Ctr Lib, Res & Learning Serv, Memphis, TN USA
[6] Le Bonheur Childrens Hosp, Dept Radiol, Memphis, TN USA
[7] Univ Tennessee, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Radiol, Memphis, TN USA
[8] Univ Tennessee, Hlth Sci Ctr, 910 Madison Ave, Memphis, TN 38163 USA
关键词
Artifact reduction; Cochlear implantation; Fast spin echo (FSE) sequence; Gradient echo (GRE) sequence; Imaging artifact; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Magnetic resonance imaging-related artifact; Pediatric malignancies; Susceptibility artifacts; Systematic review; MRI ARTIFACTS; COMPATIBILITY; DISLOCATION; POCKET;
D O I
10.1097/MAO.0000000000004095
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review of the existing literature with the aim of evaluating and consolidating the present understanding of strategies for mitigating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) artifacts related to cochlear implants in adult and pediatric patients, covering both in-vivo and ex-vivo investigations.Data SourcesA systematic review of MEDLINE-Ovid, Embase, Google Scholar, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus was performed from inception through April 2022. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO before commencement of data collection (CRD CRD42022319651).Review MethodsThe data were screened and collected by two authors independently, and eligibility was assessed according to Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis recommendations, whereas the quality of the articles was evaluated using the NIH Study Quality Assessment.ResultsThe search yielded 2,354 potentially relevant articles, of which 27 studies were included in the final review. Twelve studies looked at 1.5-T MRI, four studies looked at 3-T MRI, eight studies looked at both 1.5 and 3 T, one study looked at 0.2 and 1.5 T, and one study looked at 3- and 7.0-T MRI. Nineteen studies focused on MRI sequences as a means of artifact reduction, nine studies focused on implant magnet positioning, two studies focused on head positioning, and one study focused on both magnet and head positioning. In terms of MRI sequences, diffusion-weighted imaging produced larger artifacts compared with other sequences, whereas fast spin echo/turbo spin echo sequences and fat suppression techniques produced smaller artifacts. The position of the magnet was also found to be important, with a magnet position more than 6.5 cm posterior to the external auditory canal producing the best images with the least distortion. The angle at which the magnet is placed also affects visibility of different brain structures.ConclusionProper head positioning, magnet placement at a distance of over 6.5 cm from the external auditory canal, use of spin echo sequences, and fat suppression techniques reduce the size and shape of MRI artifacts.
引用
收藏
页码:204 / 214
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Metal Artifact Reduction Magnetic Resonance Imaging Around Arthroplasty Implants The Negative Effect of Long Echo Trains on the Implant-Related Artifact
    Kumar, Neil M.
    Netto, Cesar de Cesar
    Schon, Lew C.
    Fritz, Jan
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2017, 52 (05) : 310 - 316
  • [2] Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cochlear Implant Recipients
    Young, Nancy M.
    Rojas, Carin
    Deng, Jie
    Burrowes, Delilah
    Ryan, Maura
    OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2016, 37 (06) : 665 - 671
  • [3] Preoperative cochlear implant imaging: Is magnetic resonance imaging enough?
    Ellul, S
    Shelton, C
    Davidson, HC
    Harnsberger, HR
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLOGY, 2000, 21 (04): : 528 - 533
  • [4] Clinical application of magnetic resonance imaging in 30 cochlear implant patients
    Baumgartner, WD
    Youssefzadeh, S
    Hamzavi, J
    Czerny, C
    Gstoettner, W
    OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2001, 22 (06) : 818 - 822
  • [5] Effect of Head Position and Magnetic Resonance Sequence on Cochlear Implant-Related Artifact Size and Internal Auditory Canal Visibility
    Kalmanson, Olivia A.
    Talmage, Garrick D.
    Honce, Justin M.
    Gubbels, Samuel P.
    OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2023, 44 (02) : E73 - E80
  • [6] Magnetic resonance imaging in dental implant surgery: a systematic review
    Adib Al-Haj Husain
    Marina Zollinger
    Bernd Stadlinger
    Mutlu Özcan
    Sebastian Winklhofer
    Nadin Al-Haj Husain
    Daphne Schönegg
    Marco Piccirelli
    Silvio Valdec
    International Journal of Implant Dentistry, 10
  • [7] Magnetic resonance imaging in dental implant surgery: a systematic review
    Al-Haj Husain, Adib
    Zollinger, Marina
    Stadlinger, Bernd
    Ozcan, Mutlu
    Winklhofer, Sebastian
    Al-Haj Husain, Nadin
    Schonegg, Daphne
    Piccirelli, Marco
    Valdec, Silvio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2024, 10 (01)
  • [8] Cochlear implant user perceptions of magnetic resonance imaging
    Dewey, R. S.
    Kitterick, P. T.
    COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 23 (01) : 11 - 20
  • [9] Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Cochlear Implant Magnet in Place: Safety and Imaging Quality
    Carlson, Matthew L.
    Neff, Brian A.
    Link, Michael J.
    Lane, John I.
    Watson, Robert E.
    McGee, Kiaran P.
    Bernstein, Matt A.
    Driscoll, Colin L. W.
    OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2015, 36 (06) : 965 - 971
  • [10] Cochlear implant magnet displacement during magnetic resonance imaging
    Deneuve, Sophie
    Loundon, Nathalie
    Leboulanger, Nicolas
    Rouillon, Isabelle
    Garabedian, Erea Noel
    OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2008, 29 (06) : 789 - 790