A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Parametric Assessment of the Effect of Cochlear Implant Positioning on Brain MRI Artefacts at 3 T. | LitMetric

Parametric Assessment of the Effect of Cochlear Implant Positioning on Brain MRI Artefacts at 3 T.

Otol Neurotol

Hearing Sciences, Division of Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, NG7 2UH.

Published: December 2021

Background: Brain magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cochlear implants (CIs) is impacted by image artefacts.

Hypothesis: The optimal positioning of the CI to minimize artefacts is unknown. This study aimed to characterize the dependence of the extent and distribution of the artefact on CI positioning.

Methods: Three normally hearing individuals underwent magnetic resonance imaging using a standard T1-weighted 3D sequence. Scans were acquired with a non-functioning CI placed underneath a swimming cap at four plausible scalp positions on each side, and without the CI in situ. The artefact in each image was assessed quantitatively using voxel-based techniques. Two radiologists also independently rated the likely impact of the artefact on the detection of pathology for 20 neuroradiological locations.

Results: The procedure was well tolerated. The most postero-inferior CI positions resulted in the smallest apparent artefacts. Radiological evaluations suggested that artefacts would likely limit pathology detection in the ipsilateral temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes, regardless of CI location. Pathology detection in contralateral structures and anterior corpus callosum was rarely affected. Certain CI locations appeared to selectively spare ipsilateral structures, for example, postero-inferior CI locations selectively spared ipsilateral midbrain, deep grey matter, and frontal lobes.

Conclusion: A CI placed under a swimming cap is a feasible tool for observing the effect of CI location on image usability within a single subject and potentially informing surgical planning. Regardless of CI placement, artefacts involving ipsilateral parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes severely limited diagnostic image utility. Between 35% and 70% of neuroradiological features were deemed unaffected by the implant.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003281DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

magnetic resonance
8
resonance imaging
8
swimming cap
8
pathology detection
8
occipital lobes
8
artefacts
5
parametric assessment
4
assessment cochlear
4
cochlear implant
4
implant positioning
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!