Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34573240›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2021

Quality Control after Intracochlear Intralabyrinthine Schwannoma Resection and Cochlear Implantation.

Holger Sudhoff, Lars Uwe Scholtz, Hans Björn Gehl, Ingo Todt

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Management of inner ear schwannomas with cochlear involvement in a tertiary referral centre: a retrospective clinical study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Holger SudhoffDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld Mitte, Teutoburger Str. 50, 33604 Bielefeld, Germany.
Lars Uwe ScholtzDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld Mitte, Teutoburger Str. 50, 33604 Bielefeld, Germany.
Hans Björn GehlDepartment of Radiology, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld Mitte, 33604 Bielefeld, Germany.
Ingo TodtDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld Mitte, Teutoburger Str. 50, 33604 Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4161-8304
Bielefeld University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe combination of intralabyrinthine schwannoma (ILS) removal and cochlear implantation is the standard of care after surgical resection for audiological rehabilitation. Intracochlear ILS is not only the most frequent tumor in this group of schwannomas, but it is also, to some degree, surgically the most challenging because of its position behind the modiolus. Recent developments in the knowledge of implant position, implant magnet choice, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences make an MRI follow-up after surgical removal possible. Thus far, no results are known about the surgical success and residual rate of these kind of tumors. The aim of the present study was to perform an early MRI follow-up for the evaluation of residual or recurrent intracochlear ILS after surgical removal and cochlear implantation.

methodsIn a retrospective study, we evaluated seven patients after an intracochlear ILS removal and single-stage cochlear implantation with a mean period of 13.4 months post surgery with a 3T T1 GAD 2 mm sequence for a residual ILS. Patients were operated on using an individualized technique concept.

resultsIn six out of seven cases, 3 T T1 GAD 2 mm MRI follow-up showed no residual or recurrent tumor. In one case, a T1 signal indicated a tumor of the upper inner auditory canal (IAC) at the MRI follow up.

conclusionMRI follow-up as a quality control tool after ILS removal and cochlear implantation is highly important to exclude residual tumors. Long-term MRI evaluation results are needed and can be obtained under consideration of implant position, implant magnet, and MRI sequence choice. A preoperative MRI slice thickness less than 2 mm can be recommended to visualize possible modiolar and IAC expansion.

Indexed as

cochlear implantintracochlear intralabyrinthine schwannomaMRI

Identifiers

PMID34573240
PMCPMC8466831
OpenAlexW3199743430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.