Magnetic resonance imaging and bone anchored hearing implants: Pediatric considerations

Abstract Objective Recent developments in bone conduction hearing systems have seen the introduction of transcutaneous devices comprising of magnetic components. Our aim was to identify the number of children implanted with a traditional, non-magnetic percutaneous bone anchored hearing implant (BAHI...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology 2014-02, Vol.78 (2), p.277-279
Hauptverfasser: Doshi, Jayesh, Schneiders, Sara, Foster, Katherine, Reid, Andrew, McDermott, Ann Louise
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 279
container_issue 2
container_start_page 277
container_title International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology
container_volume 78
creator Doshi, Jayesh
Schneiders, Sara
Foster, Katherine
Reid, Andrew
McDermott, Ann Louise
description Abstract Objective Recent developments in bone conduction hearing systems have seen the introduction of transcutaneous devices comprising of magnetic components. Our aim was to identify the number of children implanted with a traditional, non-magnetic percutaneous bone anchored hearing implant (BAHI) who would not have been eligible for a transcutaneous implant based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) need. Methods A retrospective case review of 206 children who had a percutaneous BAHI at the Birmingham Children's Hospital (January 2009–October 2012) for auditory rehabilitation. Results Twenty-eight percent (56/206) of children required at least one MRI scan after receiving a BAHI and 10 percent of patients (20/206) required two or more MRI scans. The main indication for MRI scanning was for neurological co-morbidities; a MRI brain was the most common scan performed. Conclusion Although transcutaneous hearing devices/middle ear implants have their clear benefits, it may be argued that these relatively more invasive surgical procedures may not be the best option for the child who will require MRI scanning at some point in the future. Clinicians should be mindful of any need for MRI scanning when considering implant choices in the pediatric population.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.11.023
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1490901312</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0165587613006083</els_id><sourcerecordid>1490901312</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-c1fc45208769270730b2107713564d315679406e41200b7beec1734af052dcf73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU2L1EAQhhtR3HH1H4jk6CWxqj_SiQdBFr9gRUHFY9PpVGY7ZrrH7oyw_94Os3rw4qkK6n3r4ynGniI0CNi-mBs_H2NaGg4oGsQGuLjHdthpXneylffZrshUrTrdXrBHOc8AqEGph-yCS6H6Xnc79v2j3QdavasS5RhscFT5g937sK9sGKshBiqJu4mJxuqGbNoq_nBcbFjzy-ozjd6uqfhdDNmPlOzqS_aYPZjskunJXbxk396--Xr1vr7-9O7D1evr2knUa-1wclJxKDv2XIMWMHAErVGoVo4CVat7CS1J5ACDHogcaiHtBIqPbtLikj0_9z2m-PNEeTUHnx0tZT2Kp2xQ9tAXQMiLVJ6lLsWcE03mmMqp6dYgmA2pmc0ZqdmQGkRTkBbbs7sJp-FA41_TH4ZF8OosoHLnL0_JZOepgBx9IreaMfr_Tfi3gVt88M4uP-iW8hxPKRSGBk3mBsyX7a3bV1EAtNAJ8Rtk2Z2N</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1490901312</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Magnetic resonance imaging and bone anchored hearing implants: Pediatric considerations</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Doshi, Jayesh ; Schneiders, Sara ; Foster, Katherine ; Reid, Andrew ; McDermott, Ann Louise</creator><creatorcontrib>Doshi, Jayesh ; Schneiders, Sara ; Foster, Katherine ; Reid, Andrew ; McDermott, Ann Louise</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objective Recent developments in bone conduction hearing systems have seen the introduction of transcutaneous devices comprising of magnetic components. Our aim was to identify the number of children implanted with a traditional, non-magnetic percutaneous bone anchored hearing implant (BAHI) who would not have been eligible for a transcutaneous implant based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) need. Methods A retrospective case review of 206 children who had a percutaneous BAHI at the Birmingham Children's Hospital (January 2009–October 2012) for auditory rehabilitation. Results Twenty-eight percent (56/206) of children required at least one MRI scan after receiving a BAHI and 10 percent of patients (20/206) required two or more MRI scans. The main indication for MRI scanning was for neurological co-morbidities; a MRI brain was the most common scan performed. Conclusion Although transcutaneous hearing devices/middle ear implants have their clear benefits, it may be argued that these relatively more invasive surgical procedures may not be the best option for the child who will require MRI scanning at some point in the future. Clinicians should be mindful of any need for MRI scanning when considering implant choices in the pediatric population.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0165-5876</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-8464</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.11.023</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24359978</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Auditory Perception - physiology ; Bone anchored hearing implant ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Children ; Cochlear Implants ; Contraindications ; Hearing Aids ; Hearing Disorders - surgery ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Otolaryngology ; Pediatrics ; Retrospective Studies ; Suture Anchors</subject><ispartof>International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology, 2014-02, Vol.78 (2), p.277-279</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-c1fc45208769270730b2107713564d315679406e41200b7beec1734af052dcf73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-c1fc45208769270730b2107713564d315679406e41200b7beec1734af052dcf73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.11.023$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3541,27915,27916,45986</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24359978$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Doshi, Jayesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneiders, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reid, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDermott, Ann Louise</creatorcontrib><title>Magnetic resonance imaging and bone anchored hearing implants: Pediatric considerations</title><title>International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology</title><addtitle>Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol</addtitle><description>Abstract Objective Recent developments in bone conduction hearing systems have seen the introduction of transcutaneous devices comprising of magnetic components. Our aim was to identify the number of children implanted with a traditional, non-magnetic percutaneous bone anchored hearing implant (BAHI) who would not have been eligible for a transcutaneous implant based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) need. Methods A retrospective case review of 206 children who had a percutaneous BAHI at the Birmingham Children's Hospital (January 2009–October 2012) for auditory rehabilitation. Results Twenty-eight percent (56/206) of children required at least one MRI scan after receiving a BAHI and 10 percent of patients (20/206) required two or more MRI scans. The main indication for MRI scanning was for neurological co-morbidities; a MRI brain was the most common scan performed. Conclusion Although transcutaneous hearing devices/middle ear implants have their clear benefits, it may be argued that these relatively more invasive surgical procedures may not be the best option for the child who will require MRI scanning at some point in the future. Clinicians should be mindful of any need for MRI scanning when considering implant choices in the pediatric population.</description><subject>Auditory Perception - physiology</subject><subject>Bone anchored hearing implant</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Cochlear Implants</subject><subject>Contraindications</subject><subject>Hearing Aids</subject><subject>Hearing Disorders - surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Otolaryngology</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Suture Anchors</subject><issn>0165-5876</issn><issn>1872-8464</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU2L1EAQhhtR3HH1H4jk6CWxqj_SiQdBFr9gRUHFY9PpVGY7ZrrH7oyw_94Os3rw4qkK6n3r4ynGniI0CNi-mBs_H2NaGg4oGsQGuLjHdthpXneylffZrshUrTrdXrBHOc8AqEGph-yCS6H6Xnc79v2j3QdavasS5RhscFT5g937sK9sGKshBiqJu4mJxuqGbNoq_nBcbFjzy-ozjd6uqfhdDNmPlOzqS_aYPZjskunJXbxk396--Xr1vr7-9O7D1evr2knUa-1wclJxKDv2XIMWMHAErVGoVo4CVat7CS1J5ACDHogcaiHtBIqPbtLikj0_9z2m-PNEeTUHnx0tZT2Kp2xQ9tAXQMiLVJ6lLsWcE03mmMqp6dYgmA2pmc0ZqdmQGkRTkBbbs7sJp-FA41_TH4ZF8OosoHLnL0_JZOepgBx9IreaMfr_Tfi3gVt88M4uP-iW8hxPKRSGBk3mBsyX7a3bV1EAtNAJ8Rtk2Z2N</recordid><startdate>20140201</startdate><enddate>20140201</enddate><creator>Doshi, Jayesh</creator><creator>Schneiders, Sara</creator><creator>Foster, Katherine</creator><creator>Reid, Andrew</creator><creator>McDermott, Ann Louise</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140201</creationdate><title>Magnetic resonance imaging and bone anchored hearing implants: Pediatric considerations</title><author>Doshi, Jayesh ; Schneiders, Sara ; Foster, Katherine ; Reid, Andrew ; McDermott, Ann Louise</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-c1fc45208769270730b2107713564d315679406e41200b7beec1734af052dcf73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Auditory Perception - physiology</topic><topic>Bone anchored hearing implant</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Cochlear Implants</topic><topic>Contraindications</topic><topic>Hearing Aids</topic><topic>Hearing Disorders - surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Otolaryngology</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Suture Anchors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Doshi, Jayesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneiders, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reid, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDermott, Ann Louise</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Doshi, Jayesh</au><au>Schneiders, Sara</au><au>Foster, Katherine</au><au>Reid, Andrew</au><au>McDermott, Ann Louise</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Magnetic resonance imaging and bone anchored hearing implants: Pediatric considerations</atitle><jtitle>International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol</addtitle><date>2014-02-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>277</spage><epage>279</epage><pages>277-279</pages><issn>0165-5876</issn><eissn>1872-8464</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objective Recent developments in bone conduction hearing systems have seen the introduction of transcutaneous devices comprising of magnetic components. Our aim was to identify the number of children implanted with a traditional, non-magnetic percutaneous bone anchored hearing implant (BAHI) who would not have been eligible for a transcutaneous implant based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) need. Methods A retrospective case review of 206 children who had a percutaneous BAHI at the Birmingham Children's Hospital (January 2009–October 2012) for auditory rehabilitation. Results Twenty-eight percent (56/206) of children required at least one MRI scan after receiving a BAHI and 10 percent of patients (20/206) required two or more MRI scans. The main indication for MRI scanning was for neurological co-morbidities; a MRI brain was the most common scan performed. Conclusion Although transcutaneous hearing devices/middle ear implants have their clear benefits, it may be argued that these relatively more invasive surgical procedures may not be the best option for the child who will require MRI scanning at some point in the future. Clinicians should be mindful of any need for MRI scanning when considering implant choices in the pediatric population.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>24359978</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.11.023</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0165-5876
ispartof International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology, 2014-02, Vol.78 (2), p.277-279
issn 0165-5876
1872-8464
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1490901312
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Auditory Perception - physiology
Bone anchored hearing implant
Child
Child, Preschool
Children
Cochlear Implants
Contraindications
Hearing Aids
Hearing Disorders - surgery
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Otolaryngology
Pediatrics
Retrospective Studies
Suture Anchors
title Magnetic resonance imaging and bone anchored hearing implants: Pediatric considerations
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T21%3A40%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Magnetic%20resonance%20imaging%20and%20bone%20anchored%20hearing%20implants:%20Pediatric%20considerations&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20pediatric%20otorhinolaryngology&rft.au=Doshi,%20Jayesh&rft.date=2014-02-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=277&rft.epage=279&rft.pages=277-279&rft.issn=0165-5876&rft.eissn=1872-8464&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.11.023&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1490901312%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1490901312&rft_id=info:pmid/24359978&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0165587613006083&rfr_iscdi=true