Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42867657›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026

Improved assessment of the cochlear implant and temporal bone structures with ultra-high resolution photon-counting detector CT compared to conventional CT systems.

Judith van der Bie, Anke W van der Eerden, Aaike S van den Berg, Marcel L Dijkshoorn, Marcel van Straten, Hylke F E van der Toom, Floris V W J van Zijl, Joel de Groen, Robert Jan Pauw, Ronald Booij

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Judith van der BieDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anke W van der EerdenDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. A.vandereerden@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5928-2805
Aaike S van den BergDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marcel L DijkshoornDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marcel van StratenDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hylke F E van der ToomDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Floris V W J van ZijlDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Joel de GroenDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Robert Jan PauwDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ronald BooijDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Siemens Healthineers Siemens Healthineers
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study evaluates the image quality of photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) compared to conventional CT systems in cochlear implant imaging and aims to determine optimal scan parameters.

methodsThree cochlear implant models were inserted into three post-mortem human specimen heads. Each head was scanned on three high-end CT systems: SOMATOM Edge, SOMATOM Force and NAEOTOM Alpha. A total of 192 reconstructions were obtained, including various tube voltages (120-150 kV), tin filtering, and slice thicknesses (0.2-0.6 mm). For each scanner, multiple reconstruction kernels were applied. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) for bone-to-soft-tissue were calculated. Two radiologists independently assessed anatomy, implant visibility, and overall image quality on a 5-point Likert scale and scored diagnostic confidence for detecting anatomic dehiscence.

resultsPCD-CT showed significantly higher image quality scores across implant, anatomy, and general image quality compared to the Edge and Force (p < 0.001). PCD-CT also produced significantly higher CNR (mean 23.5 vs. 13.8 [Edge] and 12.7 [Force]) and greater diagnostic confidence. For PCD-CT, optimal image quality was achieved using 0.2 mm slice thickness and the Hr89 kernel at 140 kV. PCD-CT scans acquired with half dose (27.5 mGy) showed no significant difference in CNRs but led to slightly lower subjective scores compared to standard-dose imaging.

conclusionPCD-CT provides superior image quality and diagnostic confidence in cochlear implant imaging compared to the Edge and Force. Optimal results are achieved using 140 kV, 0.2 mm slices, and the Hr89 kernel. Although dose reduction is feasible, it slightly compromises subjective image quality.

Indexed as

Cochlear implantConventional CTImage quality assessmentPhoton-counting detector CTTemporal bone

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.