{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,30]],"date-time":"2026-10-30T10:43:47Z","timestamp":1793357027363,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":11,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,2]],"date-time":"2026-06-02T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1780358400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,2]],"date-time":"2026-06-02T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1780358400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"Universit\u00e4tsklinikum Freiburg"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Clin Neuroradiol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,9]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>MRI in patients with auditory implants is limited by implant-related signal void, geometric distortion, and intravoxel dephasing. Artifact extent is often described qualitatively. We aimed to quantify MRI artifact burden from a\u00a0novel transcutaneous bone-conduction implant (SentioTM) and to compare it with cochlear implant controls under routine, label-compliant 1.5\u202fT clinical conditions.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      We retrospectively analyzed MRI examinations of patients with a\u00a0SentioTM implant (\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u202f=\u20097) and cochlear implant controls (\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u202f=\u20095). All scans were performed at 1.5\u202fT, the manufacturer-approved field strength for the SentioTM Ti implant, on the same scanner using routine transverse turbo spin-echo sequences (T2-weighted and T1-weighted; 5\u2011mm slice thickness). Artifacts were quantified slice-by-slice with a\u00a0custom Python-based DICOM pipeline. The artifact-to-brain ratio (ABR, %) and maximum void area (cm\n                      <jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>\n                      ) were computed; ABRmax (peak slice) served as patient-level summary. Groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney\u00a0U test and Cliff\u2019s delta.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      SentioTM implants showed smaller and more confined artifacts. Median ABRmax was 1.1% [IQR 0.2] with a\u00a0median maximum void area of 1.7\u202fcm\n                      <jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>\n                      [IQR 0.4]. Cochlear implant controls showed larger artifacts (ABRmax 2.6% [IQR 1.0]; median maximum void area 3.8\u202fcm\n                      <jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>\n                      [IQR 2.0];\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u202f=\u20090.007\u20130.01; \u03b4\u202f=\u20090.81\u20130.89). Supratentorial diagnostic image quality outside the immediate implant region was preserved in all T2w\/T1w SentioTM examinations and partially preserved in 3\/5 cochlear implant examinations.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Quantitative artifact assessment using ABRmax is feasible in routine 1.5\u202fT MRI. Under identical protocol conditions, the SentioTM implant produced a\u00a0smaller and more localized MRI artifact burden than the cochlear implant controls examined here. Routine turbo spin-echo imaging remained diagnostically useful outside the implant region.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00062-026-01675-z","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,2]],"date-time":"2026-06-02T16:22:56Z","timestamp":1780417376000},"page":"1113-1117","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["DICOM-Based Quantification of MRI Artifact from Auditory Implants: a Technical Note Comparing Bone-Conduction- and Cochlear Implants"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"36","author":[{"given":"Benjamin","family":"Straub","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Susan","family":"Arndt","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Horst","family":"Urbach","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Lucas I.","family":"Becker","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,2]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"1675_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"94","DOI":"10.1148\/rg.2018170135","volume":"38","author":"HA Edmonson","year":"2018","unstructured":"Edmonson\u00a0HA, Carlson\u00a0ML, Patton\u00a0AC, Watson\u00a0RE. MR imaging and cochlear implants with retained internal magnets: reducing artifacts near highly inhomogeneous magnetic fields. Radiographics. 2018;38(1):94\u2013106. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1148\/rg.2018170135.","journal-title":"Radiographics"},{"issue":"2","key":"1675_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e73","DOI":"10.1097\/MAO.0000000000003738","volume":"44","author":"OA Kalmanson","year":"2023","unstructured":"Kalmanson\u00a0OA, Talmage\u00a0GD, Honce\u00a0JM, Gubbels\u00a0SP. Effect of head position and magnetic resonance sequence on cochlear implant-related artifact size and internal auditory canal visibility. Otol Neurotol. 2023;44(2):e73\u2013e80. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/MAO.0000000000003738.","journal-title":"Otol Neurotol"},{"key":"1675_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1155\/2020\/5086291","volume":"2020","author":"I Todt","year":"2020","unstructured":"Todt\u00a0I, Guerkov\u00a0R, Gehl\u00a0HB, Sudhoff\u00a0H. Comparison of cochlear implant magnets and their MRI artifact size. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:5086291. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1155\/2020\/5086291.","journal-title":"Biomed Res Int"},{"issue":"1","key":"1675_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/s41598-022-08988-2","volume":"12","author":"TM Gottfried","year":"2022","unstructured":"Gottfried\u00a0TM, Dejaco\u00a0D, Fischer\u00a0N, Innerhofer\u00a0V, Chacko\u00a0LJ, Widmann\u00a0G, et\u00a0al. Dimensions and forms of artefacts in 1.5 T and 3 T MRI caused by cochlear implants. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1)4884. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41598-022-08988-2.","journal-title":"Sci Rep"},{"issue":"12","key":"1675_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1885","DOI":"10.1007\/s00405-009-0994-8","volume":"266","author":"O Majdani","year":"2009","unstructured":"Majdani\u00a0O, Rau\u00a0TS, G\u00f6tz\u00a0F, Zimmerling\u00a0M, Lenarz\u00a0M, Lenarz\u00a0T, et\u00a0al. Artifacts caused by cochlear implants with non-removable magnets in 3T MRI: phantom and cadaveric studies. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(12):1885\u201390. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00405-009-0994-8.","journal-title":"Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol"},{"issue":"7","key":"1675_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0132483","volume":"10","author":"F Wagner","year":"2015","unstructured":"Wagner\u00a0F, Wimmer\u00a0W, Leidolt\u00a0L, Vischer\u00a0M, Weder\u00a0S, Wiest\u00a0R, et\u00a0al. Significant artifact reduction at 1.5T and 3T MRI by the use of a cochlear implant with removable magnet: an experimental human cadaver study. PLoS One. 2015;10(7)e0132483. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0132483.","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"issue":"4","key":"1675_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"273","DOI":"10.14639\/0392-100X-N2434","volume":"43","author":"P Canzi","year":"2023","unstructured":"Canzi\u00a0P, Carlotto\u00a0E, Simoncelli\u00a0A, Lafe\u00a0E, Scribante\u00a0A, Minervini\u00a0D, et\u00a0al. The usefulness of the O\u2011MAR algorithm in MRI skull base assessment to manage cochlear implant-related artifacts. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2023;43(4):273\u201382. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.14639\/0392-100X-N2434.","journal-title":"Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital"},{"issue":"1","key":"1675_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"187","DOI":"10.1002\/ohn.474","volume":"170","author":"AM Nassiri","year":"2024","unstructured":"Nassiri\u00a0AM, Messina\u00a0SA, Benson\u00a0JC, Lane\u00a0JI, McGee\u00a0KP, Trzasko\u00a0JD, et\u00a0al. Magnetic resonance imaging artifact associated with transcutaneous bone conduction implants: cholesteatoma and vestibular schwannoma surveillance. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024;170(1):187\u201394. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/ohn.474.","journal-title":"Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg"},{"issue":"2","key":"1675_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"56","DOI":"10.1159\/000500513","volume":"24","author":"W Wimmer","year":"2019","unstructured":"Wimmer\u00a0W, Hakim\u00a0A, Kiefer\u00a0C, Pastore-Wapp\u00a0M, Anschuetz\u00a0L, Caversaccio\u00a0MD, et\u00a0al. MRI metal artifact reduction sequence for auditory implants: first results with a transcutaneous bone conduction implant. Audiol Neurootol. 2019;24(2):56\u201364. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000500513.","journal-title":"Audiol Neurootol"},{"key":"1675_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/2047-783X-18-30","volume":"18","author":"C G\u00fcldner","year":"2013","unstructured":"G\u00fcldner\u00a0C, Heinrichs\u00a0J, Wei\u00df\u00a0R, Zimmermann\u00a0A, Dassinger\u00a0B, Bien\u00a0S, et\u00a0al. Visualisation of the Bonebridge by means of CT and CBCT. Eur J Med Res. 2013;18:30. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/2047-783X-18-30.","journal-title":"Eur J Med Res"},{"issue":"12","key":"1675_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"972.e9","DOI":"10.1016\/j.crad.2019.06.011","volume":"74","author":"R Srinivasan","year":"2019","unstructured":"Srinivasan\u00a0R, So\u00a0CW, Amin\u00a0N, Jaikaransingh\u00a0D, D\u2019Arco\u00a0F, Nash\u00a0R. A review of the safety of MRI in cochlear implant patients with retained magnets. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(12):972.e9\u2013972.e16. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.crad.2019.06.011.","journal-title":"Clin Radiol"}],"container-title":["Clinical Neuroradiology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00062-026-01675-z.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00062-026-01675-z","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00062-026-01675-z.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]],"date-time":"2026-08-27T13:36:35Z","timestamp":1787837795000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s00062-026-01675-z"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,2]]},"references-count":11,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,9]]}},"alternative-id":["1675"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00062-026-01675-z","relation":{},"ISSN":["1869-1439","1869-1447"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1869-1439","type":"print"},{"value":"1869-1447","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,2]]},"assertion":[{"value":"12 March 2026","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"24 May 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"2 June 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"H.U. received honoraria for lectures from Bayer, Biogen, GE, Eisai, Mbits, Lilly","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Competing interests","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Consent to Participate","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The study was approved by the local ethics committee; informed consent was waived.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","label":"Ethical standards","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","label":"Consent for Publication","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}}]}}