Objective To assess magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety of stapes prostheses. Data Sources Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to November 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Review Methods Studies reporting evidence of stapes prosthesis displacement or interaction in adult or pediatric implant recipients undergoing MRI. Cadaveric, animal, and basic studies with nonhuman data were also included. Results From an initial search of 123 articles, 42 full-text studies were evaluated for eligibility and 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Motion artifact was reported in a few stainless steel prosthesis types in vitro; however, such displacement was not observed in human cadaver temporal bone studies and had no adverse reported outcomes. A small subgroup of patients in the 1980s received a ferromagnetic stainless steel stapes implant that was recalled and has not been used since 1987. Patients with implants performed in the 1980s should be directed to 1.5T scanners from an abundance of caution. Conclusion Modern (post-1987) stapes prostheses do not pose a risk in vivo when exposed to the magnetic fields of MRI scanners.
International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors
Abstract Background Sinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represent a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology‐based topics spanning the field. Methods In accordance with prior International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence‐Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence‐Based Review, and Literature Review based on the level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus‐building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication. Results The ICSNT document consists of four major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology‐based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention. Conclusion As an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.