ArticleAudiology & neuro-otology2014
Correlation between histologic and radiographic reconstruction of intracochlear electrode position in human temporal bones.
Article in Audiology & neuro-otology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In our laboratory, human temporal bone specimens from patients who in life have undergone cochlear implantation are routinely processed with the implant in situ, embedded in Araldite, sectioned at 20 µm and serially photographed during cutting, stained with toluidine blue and mounted on glass slides. From the images, two-dimensional and three-dimensional reconstructions can be made and a very accurate implant insertion depth can be calculated from the three-dimensional reconstructions. However, this method precludes subsequent special stains and further molecular investigations of the tissue including proteomics and immunostaining, which is now possible with celloidin-embedded tissue. In this study, we correlated measurement of the implant array insertion depth calculated from histologic three-dimensional reconstruction with that measured from three-dimensional radiologic multiplanar reconstruction. Four human temporal bones with cochlear implants underwent postfixation preprocessing CT imaging with a Siemens Somatom Sensation Scanner. The CT scans from these four bones were downloaded into the Voxar software application, reformatted using the multiplanar reconstruction tool, viewed in three dimensions and measurements of intracochlear insertion lengths of the implants were obtained. The bones were processed routinely for in situ Araldite embedding, serial images were made of the block during sectioning, postprocessed using PV-Wave® software, aligned with Amira® software, and used to create histologic three-dimensional reconstructions. From these three-dimensional reconstructions, the insertion depth of the electrode array was mathematically calculated. The range of insertion depths was 15.9 mm (case 1) to 26.6 mm (case 4). The two methods, radiographic multiplanar reconstruction and three-dimensional reconstruction, differed by 0.4-0.9%. This provides confidence that important localization information about the electrode in situ can be gleaned from CT scans, thereby allowing us to extract the implants prior to processing for celloidin embedment and allow further techniques such as special stains and immunostaining to be accomplished in order to evaluate molecular mechanisms involved in cochlear implantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.