ArticleThe Journal of laryngology and otology2023
Comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (Bonebridge).
Article in The Journal of laryngology and otology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Bonebridge Implant in a Child with Congenital Cholesteatoma: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Active Implantable Hearing Devices: Reports from the Daily Radiological Routine in an Outpatient MR Center.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the possibilities of artefact reduction using different anatomical implant positions with the Bonebridge bone-conduction hearing implant 602 for a patient with an acoustic neuroma requiring regular diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging of the tumour position.
methodThree implant positions and magnetic resonance imaging examinations with and without customised sequences for metal artefact suppression were investigated. The diagnostic usefulness was rated by a radiologist (qualitative evaluation), and the relation between the area of artefact and the total head area was calculated (quantitative evaluation).
resultsFollowing the qualitative analysis, the radiologist rated the superior to middle fossa implant placement significantly better for diagnostic purposes, which is in agreement with the calculated artefact ratio (
conclusionThe application of artefact reduction sequencing and special anatomical implant positioning allows regular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with the bone-conduction hearing implant 602 without sacrificing diagnostic imaging quality for tumour diagnosis.
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.