Cargando…

Comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (Bonebridge)

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the possibilities of artefact reduction using different anatomical implant positions with the Bonebridge bone-conduction hearing implant 602 for a patient with an acoustic neuroma requiring regular diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging of the tumour position....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Edlinger, S, Tenner, E, Frühwald, J, Sprinzl, G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9975762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35144697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215122000494
_version_ 1784898947616079872
author Edlinger, S
Tenner, E
Frühwald, J
Sprinzl, G
author_facet Edlinger, S
Tenner, E
Frühwald, J
Sprinzl, G
author_sort Edlinger, S
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the possibilities of artefact reduction using different anatomical implant positions with the Bonebridge bone-conduction hearing implant 602 for a patient with an acoustic neuroma requiring regular diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging of the tumour position. METHOD: Three implant positions and magnetic resonance imaging examinations with and without customised sequences for metal artefact suppression were investigated. The diagnostic usefulness was rated by a radiologist (qualitative evaluation), and the relation between the area of artefact and the total head area was calculated (quantitative evaluation). RESULTS: Following the qualitative analysis, the radiologist rated the superior to middle fossa implant placement significantly better for diagnostic purposes, which is in agreement with the calculated artefact ratio (p < 0.0001). The customised slice-encoding metal artifact correction view-angle tilting metal artifact reduction technique sequences significantly decreased the relative artefact area between 5.13 per cent and 25.02 per cent. The smallest mean artefact diameter was found for the superior to middle fossa position with 6.80 ± 1.30 cm (range: 5.42–9.74 cm; reduction of 18.65 per cent). CONCLUSION: The application of artefact reduction sequencing and special anatomical implant positioning allows regular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with the bone-conduction hearing implant 602 without sacrificing diagnostic imaging quality for tumour diagnosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9975762
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99757622023-03-02 Comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (Bonebridge) Edlinger, S Tenner, E Frühwald, J Sprinzl, G J Laryngol Otol Main Article OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the possibilities of artefact reduction using different anatomical implant positions with the Bonebridge bone-conduction hearing implant 602 for a patient with an acoustic neuroma requiring regular diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging of the tumour position. METHOD: Three implant positions and magnetic resonance imaging examinations with and without customised sequences for metal artefact suppression were investigated. The diagnostic usefulness was rated by a radiologist (qualitative evaluation), and the relation between the area of artefact and the total head area was calculated (quantitative evaluation). RESULTS: Following the qualitative analysis, the radiologist rated the superior to middle fossa implant placement significantly better for diagnostic purposes, which is in agreement with the calculated artefact ratio (p < 0.0001). The customised slice-encoding metal artifact correction view-angle tilting metal artifact reduction technique sequences significantly decreased the relative artefact area between 5.13 per cent and 25.02 per cent. The smallest mean artefact diameter was found for the superior to middle fossa position with 6.80 ± 1.30 cm (range: 5.42–9.74 cm; reduction of 18.65 per cent). CONCLUSION: The application of artefact reduction sequencing and special anatomical implant positioning allows regular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with the bone-conduction hearing implant 602 without sacrificing diagnostic imaging quality for tumour diagnosis. Cambridge University Press 2023-03 2022-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9975762/ /pubmed/35144697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215122000494 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
spellingShingle Main Article
Edlinger, S
Tenner, E
Frühwald, J
Sprinzl, G
Comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (Bonebridge)
title Comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (Bonebridge)
title_full Comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (Bonebridge)
title_fullStr Comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (Bonebridge)
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (Bonebridge)
title_short Comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (Bonebridge)
title_sort comparison of artefact reduction possibilities with the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (bonebridge)
topic Main Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9975762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35144697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215122000494
work_keys_str_mv AT edlingers comparisonofartefactreductionpossibilitieswiththenewactivetranscutaneousboneconductionimplantbonebridge
AT tennere comparisonofartefactreductionpossibilitieswiththenewactivetranscutaneousboneconductionimplantbonebridge
AT fruhwaldj comparisonofartefactreductionpossibilitieswiththenewactivetranscutaneousboneconductionimplantbonebridge
AT sprinzlg comparisonofartefactreductionpossibilitieswiththenewactivetranscutaneousboneconductionimplantbonebridge