ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Cochlear implant positioning: development and validation of an automatic method using computed tomography image analysis.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to preoperatively asses the feasibility of drilling a bony recess for the fixation of a cochlear implant in the temporal bone. Even though complications are rare with cochlear implantations, drilling at the site of implantation have resulted in hematoma or cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Mainly in cases with a reduced temporal bone thickness, the risk for complications has increased, such as in paediatric patients. Methods: An in-house designed semi-automatic algorithm was developed to analyse a 3D model of the skull. The feasibility of drilling the recess was determined by a gradient descent method to search for the thickest part of the temporal bone. Feasibility was determined by the residual bone thickness which was calculated after a simulated drilling of the recess at the thickest position. An initial validation of the algorithm was performed by measuring the accuracy of the algorithm on five 3D models with known thickest locations for the recess. The accuracy was determined by a part comparison between the known position and algorithm provided position. Results: In four of the five validation models a standard deviation for accuracy below the predetermined cut-off value of 4.2 mm was achieved between the actual thickest position and the position determined by the algorithm. Furthermore, the residual thickness calculated by the algorithm showed a high agreement (max. 0.02 mm difference) with the actual thickness. Conclusion: With the developed algorithm, a semi-automatic method was created to analyse the temporal bone thickness within a specified region of interest on the skull. Thereby, providing indications for surgical feasibility, potential risks for anatomical structures and impact on procedure time of cochlear implantation. This method could be a valuable research tool to objectively assess feasibility of drilling a recess in patients with thin temporal bones preoperatively.
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.