ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Optimizing Cochlear Implant Position for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Vestibular Schwannoma.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. 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.
- Geometric plane alignment as a methodological requirement for accurate angular measurement in three-dimensional craniofacial imaging.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Optimizing Cochlear Implant Position for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Vestibular Schwannoma.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Cochlear implant artifact analysis in cranial MRI: effects of field strength and imaging sequence.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to determine the optimal placement of the cochlear implant (CI) magnet to ensure the visibility of the inner ear and internal auditory canal (IAC) on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in patients treated for vestibular schwannoma (VS). Methods: Nine patients who underwent CI either simultaneously with VS resection or sequentially after gamma knife surgery between January 2021 and June 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. Three patients had the CI placed in the conventional position, while six had it positioned farther from the external auditory canal (EAC) at a more vertical angle (alternative positioning). Postoperative temporal MRI scans were analyzed for inner ear and IAC visibility. Postoperative brain computed tomography (CT) scans underwent three-dimensional reconstruction to measure the distances from the CI magnet to the EAC and IAC, and the nasion-EAC-magnet angle. Results: Among the six patients in the alternative positioning group, five showed unobstructed IAC visibility, with both magnet-to-EAC and magnet-to-IAC distances exceeding 90 mm. The remaining patient in this group, whose distances were below 90 mm, showed obscured IAC structures due to artifacts. All three patients in the conventional positioning group had distances less than 90 mm and exhibited obscured IAC visibility. A strong correlation was observed between the magnet-to-EAC and magnet-to-IAC distances. Conclusion: Optimal positioning of the CI magnet, particularly maintaining a distance greater than 90 mm from the EAC, is crucial for achieving clear postoperative MRI visualization of the IAC in patients undergoing VS treatment. Level of Evidence: 3.
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.