ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2026
Impact of Spatial Resolution on CT Imaging of Middle Ear Prostheses: Comparison of Photon-Counting and Energy-Integrating Detectors.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photon-counting detector computed tomography for temporal bone: does higher resolution matter?Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery · 2026Review
- Improved visualization of malpositioned middle ear prostheses using photon-counting detector CT: a cadaver study.Radiology advances · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeCT imaging of submillimeter middle ear prostheses-vital for postsurgery treatment-requires high spatial resolution. This study evaluated the impact of spatial resolution for the visualization of prostheses using photon-counting detector (PCD) CT, energy-integrating detector (EID) CT, and EID-CT with attenuating comb filters. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-one middle ear prostheses of different makes were placed within a head phantom and scanned on a PCD-CT (NAEOTOM Alpha), 2 dual-source CTs with comb filters (Force and Flash), and a dual-layer CT without comb filter (7500). Scanning and reconstruction followed clinical temporal bone protocols for each scanner, with a matched 120 kV and 80 mm FOV; sharp kernels/algorithms of Qr89, Ur77, Ur77, and YD; and minimal allowable slice thickness of 0.2, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.67 mm, respectively. Qualitative assessments were performed, including visual inspection, volume rendering, a blind reader study, and quantitative assessments using line profiles, and full width at half maximum (FWHM). One prosthesis was implanted in human cadaver head and scanned on a PCD-CT (NAEOTOM Alpha), a third-generation dual-source (Force), and a dual-layer CT (7500) following the same phantom study protocols. Image quality was compared among the scanners.
resultsPCD-CT provided images with the highest spatial resolution, allowing clinically relevant assessment of prosthesis position. EID-CT scanners with comb filters provided good results, with noticeable loss of detail, while EID-CT without a comb filter showed substantial resolution loss. These findings were consistent across readers (Kendall W = 0.89;
conclusionsPCD-CT provided dose-efficient, accurate evaluation of ossicular prostheses, without the degradation of submillimeter structures, while maintaining lower dose and noise.
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.