Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291339›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2022

Prospective Evaluation of 3 T MRI Effect on Residual Hearing Function of Cochlea Implantees.

Theda Eichler, Ahmed Ibrahim, Conrad Riemann, Lars Uwe Scholtz, Hans Björn Gehl, Peter Goon, Holger Sudhoff, Ingo Todt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 57% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Determining ideal electrode insertion depth in paediatric cochlear implantation.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 · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Theda EichlerDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld, 33502 Bielefeld, Germany.
Ahmed IbrahimDepartment of Radiology, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld, 33502 Bielefeld, Germany.
Conrad RiemannDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld, 33502 Bielefeld, Germany.
Lars Uwe ScholtzDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld, 33502 Bielefeld, Germany.
Hans Björn GehlDepartment of Radiology, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld, 33502 Bielefeld, Germany.
Peter GoonDivision of Dermatology, National University Health System, Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119228, Singapore.
Holger SudhoffDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld, 33502 Bielefeld, Germany.
Ingo TodtDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld, 33502 Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4161-8304
Bielefeld University · DENational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe approval process for MRI safety of implants includes physical observations and an experimental evaluation in artificial settings to simulate the in vivo effect. This contains the observation of temperature changes and artificial current generation by the magnetic field. From these findings, the safety of an implant and its effect on the patient can be estimated. MRI safety is based on an in vivo evaluation of adverse events after the approval process, but an actual analysis of the effect on different tissues is not followed. The effect of MRI scanning in cochlea implantees on their residual hearing as the correlate of the hair cell function is so far unknown, therefore the aim of the present study was to observe the effect of 3 T MRI on the residual hearing of cochlea implantees. MATERIAL AND

methodsIn this prospective study, we performed a 3 T MRI T2 2D MS Drive sequence in eight cochlea-implanted ears. Before and after the MRI scan, a bone conduction pure tone audiogram (BC PTA) was performed. All cochlea implantees had a pre-scanning threshold of low frequency residual hearing between 20 dB and 65 dB.

resultsLow frequency mean residual hearing was not affected by the 3 T T2 2D MS Drive sequence. We observed a pre-scanning threshold at 250 Hz of 42.9 (SD 3.9) dB and for 500 Hz 57.1 (SD 6.4) dB. Post-scanning BC PTA was for 250 Hz 42.1 (SD 3.9) dB and for 500 Hz 57.1 (SD 5.7) dB.

conclusion3 T MRI scanning has no significant functional effect on the hair cells in cochlea implantees in low frequencies with a T2 2D MS Drive sequence.

Indexed as

cochlea implanthair cellsMRIresidual hearing function

Identifiers

PMID36291339
PMCPMC9599932
OpenAlexW4306773382

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.