Precise evaluation of the postoperative cochlear duct length by flat-panel volume computed tomography – Application of secondary reconstructions

Author(s):  
Philipp Schendzielorz ◽  
Lukas Ilgen ◽  
Franz-Tassilo Müller-Graff ◽  
Laurent Noyalet ◽  
Johannes Völker ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Schendzielorz ◽  
Lukas Ilgen ◽  
Tassilo Mueller-Graff ◽  
Laurent Noyalet ◽  
Johannes Völker ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. 1003-1008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnold C. Cheung ◽  
Miriam A. Bredella ◽  
Ma’moun Al Khalaf ◽  
Michael Grasruck ◽  
Christianne Leidecker ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 133 (09) ◽  
pp. 764-769
Author(s):  
G Pamuk ◽  
A E Pamuk ◽  
A Akgöz ◽  
E Öztürk ◽  
M D Bajin ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectiveTo determine cochlear duct mid-scalar length in normal cochleae and its role in selecting the correct peri-modiolar and mid-scalar implant length.MethodsThe study included 40 patients with chronic otitis media who underwent high-resolution computed tomography of the temporal bone. The length and height of the basal turn, mid-modiolar height of the cochlea, mid-scalar and lateral wall length of the cochlear duct, and the ‘X’ line (the largest distance from mid-point of the round window to the mid-scalar point of the cochlear canal) were measured.ResultsCochlear duct lateral wall length (28.88 mm) was higher than cochlear duct mid-scalar length (20.08 mm) (p < 0.001). The simple linear regression equation for estimating complete cochlear duct length was: cochlear duct length = 0.2 + 2.85 × X line.ConclusionUsing the mid-scalar point as the reference point (rather than the lateral wall) for measuring cochlear duct mid-scalar length, when deciding on the length of mid-scalar or peri-modiolar electrode, increases measurement accuracy. Mean cochlear duct mid-scalar length was compatible with peri-modiolar and mid-scalar implant lengths. The measurement method described herein may be useful for pre-operative peri-modiolar or mid-scalar implant selection.


PLoS Genetics ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. e118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Dullin ◽  
Jeannine Missbach-Guentner ◽  
Wolfgang F Vogel ◽  
Eckhardt Grabbe ◽  
Frauke Alves

2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (6Part23) ◽  
pp. 2634-2634 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Alspaugh ◽  
E Christodoulou ◽  
M Goodsitt ◽  
J Stayman

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Arweiler-Harbeck ◽  
Christoph Mönninghoff ◽  
Jens Greve ◽  
Thomas Hoffmann ◽  
Sophia Göricke ◽  
...  

Background. Postoperative imaging after cochlear implantation is usually performed by conventional cochlear view (X-ray) or by multislice computed tomography (MSCT). MSCT after cochlear implantation often provides multiple metal artefacts; thus, a more detailed view of the implant considering the given anatomy is desirable. A quite new method is flat panel volume computed tomography. The aim of the study was to evaluate the method’s clinical use. Material and Methods. After cochlear implantation with different implant types, flat panel CT scan (Philips Allura) was performed in 31 adult patients. Anatomical details, positioning, and resolution of the different electrode types (MedEL, Advanced Bionics, and Cochlear) were evaluated interdisciplinary (ENT/Neuroradiology). Results. In all 31 patients cochlear implant electrode array and topographical position could be distinguished exactly. Spatial resolution and the high degree of accuracy were superior to reported results of MSCT. Differentiation of cochlear scalae by identification of the osseous spiral lamina was possible in some cases. Scanning artefacts were low. Conclusion. Flat panel CT scan allows exact imaging independent of implant type. This is mandatory for detailed information on cochlear electrode position. It enables us to perform optimal auditory nerve stimulation and allows feed back on surgical quality concerning the method of electrode insertion.


2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soenke H. Bartling ◽  
Rajiv Gupta ◽  
Attila Torkos ◽  
Christian Dullin ◽  
Grabbe Eckhardt ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soenke H. Bartling ◽  
Martin Leinung ◽  
Johannes Graute ◽  
Thomas Rodt ◽  
Christian Dullin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document