ReviewMethods and protocols2024
Advances in 3D Inner Ear Reconstruction Software for Cochlear Implants: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Methods and protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative spatiotemporal dynamics of access resistance, polarization impedance, and nested bipolar impedance in standard and dexamethasone-eluting electrode arrays.Hearing research · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Electrode Array Insertion Improves Stability of Acoustic Hearing Thresholds.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Biohybrid cochlear implants: neural interfaces, regenerative pathways, and translational benchmarks.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Review
- Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Cochlear Implant Electrode Impedance in Standard and Dexamethasone-Eluting Electrode Arrays.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Auditory impairment stands as a pervasive global issue, exerting significant effects on individuals' daily functioning and interpersonal engagements. Cochlear implants (CIs) have risen as a cutting-edge solution for severe to profound hearing loss, directly stimulating the auditory nerve with electrical signals. The success of CI procedures hinges on precise pre-operative planning and post-operative evaluation, highlighting the significance of advanced three-dimensional (3D) inner ear reconstruction software. Accurate pre-operative imaging is vital for identifying anatomical landmarks and assessing cochlear deformities. Tools like 3D Slicer, Amira and OTOPLAN provide detailed depictions of cochlear anatomy, aiding surgeons in simulating implantation scenarios and refining surgical approaches. Post-operative scans play a crucial role in detecting complications and ensuring CI longevity. Despite technological advancements, challenges such as standardization and optimization persist. This review explores the role of 3D inner ear reconstruction software in patient selection, surgical planning, and post-operative assessment, tracing its evolution and emphasizing features like image segmentation and virtual simulation. It addresses software limitations and proposes solutions, advocating for their integration into clinical practice. Ultimately, this review underscores the impact of 3D inner ear reconstruction software on cochlear implantation, connecting innovation with precision medicine.
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.