3.8 Article

Multiple MRIs demagnetized an internal BAHA magnet - An enriching case for the everyday practice

Journal

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA CASE REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 127-132

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/23772484.2023.2253370

Keywords

Baha; bone-anchored hearing aid; demagnetization; electromagnetic field; MRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents a Baha patient who experienced demagnetization after repeated MRIs and introduces a novel way of monitoring magnet adherence. The magnetic field of the old and new internal magnet was documented using three different methods, with measurements performed using a gaussmeter serving as the gold standard and confirmed by the other two methods.
We present a Baha patient with demagnetization after repeated magnetic resonance imagings (MRIs) and demonstrate a novel way of monitoring magnet adherence. A 53-year-old man with a Baha Attract System reported reduced holding force of the external audio processor after nine MRIs (eight at 1.5 T and one at 3 T). Subsequently, the original external magnet was replaced by a stronger magnet without benefit. After three additional MRIs at 1.5 T, a total loss of magnetic adherence was reported. During revision surgery replacing the internal magnet, we used three different methods to document the magnetic field of the old and new internal magnet; a gaussmeter, a flux detector film and in-situ determination of the minimum adhesive magnetic force. Measurements performed with the gaussmeter served as the gold standard and were confirmed by the other two methods. The application of MR imaging at 3 T in patients with a Baha system is off-label use and initiates magnetic-implant damage, while repeated MRI at 1.5 T scans seems to be harmless. To document potential demagnetization, a flux detector film can be used in daily practice due to its simplicity of application and broad availability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available