ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2026
Comparative Analysis of Middle Ear Prostheses Using Photon-Counting Detector CT versus Conventional CT.
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 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.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeMiddle ear prostheses are among the smallest implanted medical devices, with diameters as small as 0.25 mm. Accurate postoperative imaging is critical for assessing prosthesis placement, detecting complications such as dislodgement or extrusion, and informing potential revisions. Conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) is traditionally used for imaging these implants; however, with the recent clinical use of photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT), further analysis on multiple parameters is required to assess future utility. This study compares the spatial resolution and visualization quality of middle ear prostheses between EID-CT and PCD-CT. We hypothesize that PCD-CT will provide superior spatial resolution of prostheses, allowing for more accurate postoperative assessments to facilitate improved clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 10 patients with various middle ear prostheses, including total ossicular replacement prostheses, partial ossicular replacement prostheses (PORP), stapes prostheses, and the middle ear portion of cochlear implants. Each patient underwent temporal bone imaging on both EID-CT and PCD-CT scanners using institutional high-resolution protocols. A total of 30 line profiles were analyzed, with peak intensity (HU) and full width at half maximum (FWHM) calculated from the intensity curves along the prosthetic shafts. Paired
resultsPCD-CT demonstrated significantly higher mean peak intensity values (4855.8 [SD, 3944.3] HU ) compared with EID-CT (2498.7 [SD, 2135.9] HU), with a mean difference of 2357 HU (95% CI, 77-4638; HU;
conclusionsPCD-CT demonstrates advantages in spatial resolution and image quality over conventional EID-CT for postoperative evaluation of middle ear prostheses. Enhanced visualization may improve diagnostic confidence and enable more accurate postoperative assessment and complication detection.
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.