ArticleScience progress
Morphometric and morphological evaluation of mastoid emissary canal using cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mastoid emissary vein, mastoid emissary foramen, and mastoid emissary canal: anatomy, variability, imaging, and clinical implications.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Review
- Fenestrated giant mastoid emissary vein, a novel finding.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Article
- Assessment of mastoid emissary foramen morphology: a multidetector computed tomography study.Oral radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to determine mastoid emissary canal's (MEC) and mastoid foramen (MF) prevalence and morphometric characteristics on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images to underline its clinical significance and discuss its surgical consequences.
methodsIn the retrospective analysis, two oral and maxillofacial radiologists analyzed the CBCT images of 135 patients (270 sides). The biggest MF and MEC were measured in the images evaluated in MultiPlanar Reconstruction (MPR) views. The MF and MEC mean diameters were calculated. The mastoid foramina number was recorded. The prevalence of MF was studied according to gender and side of the patient.
resultsThe overall prevalence of MEC and MF was 119 (88.1%). The prevalence of MEC and MF is 55.5% in females and 44.5% in males. MEC and MF were identified as bilateral in 80 patients (67.20%) and unilateral in 39 patients (32.80%). The mean diameter of MF was 2.4 ± 0.9 mm. The mean height of MF was 2.3 ± 0.9. The mean diameter of the MEC was 2.1 ± 0.8, and the mean height of the MEC was 2.1 ± 0.8. There is a statistical difference between the genders (p = 0.043) in foramen diameter. Males had a significantly larger mean diameter of MF in comparison to females.
conclusionMEC and MF must be evaluated thoroughly if the surgery is contemplated. Radiologists and surgeons should be aware of mastoid emissary canal morphology, variations, clinical relevance, and surgical consequences while operating in the suboccipital and mastoid areas to avoid unexpected and catastrophic complications. CBCT may be a reliable imaging diagnostic technique.
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.