ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Comparison of 96-kV and 120-kV cone-beam CT for the assessment of cochlear implants.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning Reconstruction Enables Substantial Radiation Dose Reduction in Ultra-High-Resolution Temporal Bone CT: a Body Donor Study.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the diagnostic value of 120-kV with conventional 96-kV Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) of the temporal bone after cochlear implant (CI) surgery.
methodsThis retrospective study included CBCT scans after CI surgery between 06/17 and 01/18. CBCT allowed examinations with 96-kV or 120-kV; other parameters were the same. Two radiologists independently evaluated following criteria on 5-point Likert scales: osseous spiral lamina, inner and outer cochlear wall, semi-circular canals, mastoid trabecular structure, overall image quality, metal and motion artefacts, depiction of intracochlear electrode position and visualisation of single electrode contacts. Effective radiation dose was assessed.
resultsSeventy-five patients (females, n = 39 [52.0%], mean age, 55.8 ± 16.5 years) were scanned with 96-kV (n = 32, 42.7%) and 120-kV (n = 43, 57.3%) protocols including CI models from three vendors (vendor A n = 7; vendor B n = 43; vendor C n = 25). Overall image quality, depiction of anatomical structures, and electrode position were rated significantly better in 120-kV images compared to 96-kV (all p < = 0.018). Anatomical structures and electrode position were rated significantly better in 120-kV CBCT for CI models from vendor A and C, while 120-kV did not provide improved image quality in CI models from vendor B. Radiation doses were significantly higher for 120-kV scans compared to 96-kV (0.15 vs. 0.08 mSv, p < 0.001).
conclusions120-kV and 96-kV CBCT provide good diagnostic images for the postoperative CI evaluation. While 120-kV showed improved depiction of temporal bone and CI electrode position compared to 96-kV in most CI models, the 120-kV protocol should be chosen wisely due to a substantially higher radiation exposure.
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.