Measuring 3D Cochlear Duct Length on MRI: Is It Accurate and Reliable?

Author(s):  
M.B. Eser ◽  
B. Atalay ◽  
M.B. Dogan ◽  
N. Gündüz ◽  
M.T. Kalcioglu
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Shayna P. Cooperman ◽  
Ksenia A. Aaron ◽  
Ayman Fouad ◽  
Emma Tran ◽  
Nikolas H. Blevins ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Kayvan Nateghifard ◽  
David Low ◽  
Lola Awofala ◽  
Dilakshan Srikanthan ◽  
Jafri Kuthubutheen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Knowledge of the cochlear implant array’s precise position is important because of the correlation between electrode position and speech understanding. Several groups have provided recent image processing evidence to determine scalar translocation, angular insertion depth, and cochlear duct length (CDL); all of which are being used for patient-specific programming. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is increasingly used in otology due to its superior resolution and low radiation dose. Our objectives are as followed: Validate CBCT by measuring cochlear metrics, including basal turn diameter (A-value) and lateral wall cochlear duct length at different angular intervals and comparing it against microcomputed CT (uCT).Explore the relationship between measured lateral wall cochlear duct length at different angular intervals and insertion depth among 3 different length electrodes using CBCT. Methods The study was performed using fixed human cadaveric temporal bones in a tertiary academic centre. Ten temporal bones were subjected to the standard facial recess approach for cochlear implantation and imaged by CBCT followed by uCT. Measurements were performed on a three-dimensional reconstructed model of the cochlea. Sequential insertion of 3 electrodes (Med-El Flex24, 28 and Soft) was then performed in 5 bones and reimaged by CBCT. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson’s correlation. Results There was good agreement between CBCT and uCT for cochlear metrics, validating the precision of CBCT against the current gold standard uCT in imaging. The A-value recorded by both modalities showed a high degree of linear correlation and did not differ by more than 0.23 mm in absolute values. For the measurement of lateral wall CDL at various points along the cochlea, there was a good correlation between both modalities at 360 deg and 720 deg (r = 0.85, p < 0.01 and r = 0.79, p < 0.01). The Flex24 electrode displayed consistent insertion depth across different bones. Conclusions CBCT reliably performs cochlear metrics and measures electrode insertion depth. The low radiation dose, fast acquisition time, diminished metallic artifacts and portability of CBCT make it a valid option for imaging in cochlear implant surgery.


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 &lt; 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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 275 (3) ◽  
pp. 725-728 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohnish Grover ◽  
Shitanshu Sharma ◽  
Shashank Nath Singh ◽  
Tanmaya Kataria ◽  
Rajendra Singh Lakhawat ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Chen ◽  
Jianqing Chen ◽  
Haoyue Tan ◽  
Mengda Jiang ◽  
Yingwei Wu ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 275 (5) ◽  
pp. 1077-1085 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Jakob Lexow ◽  
Marcel Kluge ◽  
Nils-Claudius Gellrich ◽  
Thomas Lenarz ◽  
Omid Majdani ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document