Virtual Quality Control in Middle Ear Surgery: Is Image-guided Tympanoscopy a Valuable Tool for Depicting Borderline Situations?
Journal
Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
ISSN: 1537-4505
Titre abrégé: Otol Neurotol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100961504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
entrez:
14
7
2020
pubmed:
14
7
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Before modern imaging was introduced, revision surgery was the only way to evaluate possible reasons for inadequate improvement in hearing after ossicular replacement during reconstructive middle ear surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate freely navigable virtual tympanoscopy using different computed tomographic modalities. We compared cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), flat panel computed tomography (FPCT), and conventional computed tomography in helical mode (CTH), volume mode (CTV), and ultra high resolution mode (CTD). Four temporal bone specimens were reconstructed with partial or total ossicular replacement prostheses. The best functional results for prosthetic coupling were achieved under the control of laser Doppler vibrometry (LDV). Afterward, a progressive step-by-step decoupling of the prostheses was carried out. Different prosthesis positions were evaluated by LDV as well as different computed tomographic modalities with 3D reconstruction of each dataset. Anatomical structures were better depicted and the best position and coupling of inserted prostheses were achieved using CBCT. All imaging techniques could be used to control the position of middle ear prostheses, but CBCT provided the highest resolution and the best image quality in both 2D and 3D reformations and in 3D-animated video representation. Compared with several other imaging modalities, CBCT was best at depicting miscellaneous coupling problems. Noninvasive detection of coupling problems caused by minimal loss of contact between prostheses and middle ear ossicles will influence the clinical outcome. This early detection will help to determine whether revision surgery is needed.
Sections du résumé
HYPOTHESIS
Before modern imaging was introduced, revision surgery was the only way to evaluate possible reasons for inadequate improvement in hearing after ossicular replacement during reconstructive middle ear surgery.
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate freely navigable virtual tympanoscopy using different computed tomographic modalities. We compared cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), flat panel computed tomography (FPCT), and conventional computed tomography in helical mode (CTH), volume mode (CTV), and ultra high resolution mode (CTD).
METHODS
Four temporal bone specimens were reconstructed with partial or total ossicular replacement prostheses. The best functional results for prosthetic coupling were achieved under the control of laser Doppler vibrometry (LDV). Afterward, a progressive step-by-step decoupling of the prostheses was carried out. Different prosthesis positions were evaluated by LDV as well as different computed tomographic modalities with 3D reconstruction of each dataset.
RESULTS
Anatomical structures were better depicted and the best position and coupling of inserted prostheses were achieved using CBCT. All imaging techniques could be used to control the position of middle ear prostheses, but CBCT provided the highest resolution and the best image quality in both 2D and 3D reformations and in 3D-animated video representation.
CONCLUSION
Compared with several other imaging modalities, CBCT was best at depicting miscellaneous coupling problems. Noninvasive detection of coupling problems caused by minimal loss of contact between prostheses and middle ear ossicles will influence the clinical outcome. This early detection will help to determine whether revision surgery is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32658106
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002483
pii: 00129492-202008000-00042
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e893-e900Références
Zahnert T, Huttenbrink KB. [Pitfalls in ossicular chain reconstruction]. HNO 2005; 53:89–102.
Vassbotn FS, Moller P, Silvola J. Short-term results using Kurz titanium ossicular implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 264:21–25.
Offergeld C, Kromeier J, Aschendorff A, et al. Rotational tomography of the normal and reconstructed middle ear in temporal bones: An experimental study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 264:345–351.
Govil N, Kaffenberger TM, Shaffer AD, et al. Factors influencing hearing outcomes in pediatric patients undergoing ossicular chain reconstruction. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 99:60–65.
Offergeld C, Kromeier J, Merchant SN, et al. Experimental investigation of rotational tomography in reconstructed middle ears with clinical implications. Hear Res 2010; 263:191–197.
Offergeld C, Pilling E, Lazurashvili N, et al. [Conventional tomographic investigations of the reconstructed middle ear in temporal bone specimen]. Laryngorhinootologie 2007; 86:501–506.
Zaoui K, Kromeier J, Neudert M, et al. Clinical investigation of flat panel CT following middle ear reconstruction: A study of 107 patients. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:587–594.
Zaoui K, Kromeier J, Neudert M, et al. Flat panel CT following stapes prosthesis insertion: An experimental and clinical study. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:837–844.
Zahnert T, Offergeld C. Quality management in middle ear surgery: Controversies regarding preoperative imaging. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2010; 72:159–167.
Bremke M, Luers JC, Stenner M, et al. Radiologic examinations in human temporal bone specimens using digital volume tomography and high-resolution computed tomography after implantation of middle ear prosthesis and cochlear implant electrode array. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34:1321–1328.
Lee DH, Chan S, Salisbury C, et al. Reconstruction and exploration of virtual middle-ear models derived from micro-CT datasets. Hear Res 2010; 263:198–203.
Komori M, Yanagihara N, Hyodo J, et al. Position of TORP on the stapes footplate assessed with cone beam computed tomography. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33:1353–1356.
Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: Physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30:1088–1095.
Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: Clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30:1285–1292.
Penninger RT, Tavassolie TS, Carey JP. Cone-beam volumetric tomography for applications in the temporal bone. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32:453–460.
Stutzki M, Jahns E, Mandapathil MM, et al. Indications of cone beam CT in head and neck imaging. Acta Otolaryngol 2015; 135:1337–1343.
Teymoortash A, Hamzei S, Murthum T, et al. Temporal bone imaging using digital volume tomography and computed tomography: A comparative cadaveric radiological study. Surg Radiol Anat 2011; 33:123–128.
Pein MK, Brandt S, Plontke SK, et al. [Visualization of subtle temporal bone structures. Comparison of cone beam CT and MDCT]. Radiologe 2014; 54:271–278.
Jakob TF, Kromeier J, Baumann T, et al. Experimental simulation of clinical borderline situations in temporal bone specimens after ossiculoplasty. Ear Hear 2018; 39:131–138.
Majdani O, Thews K, Bartling S, et al. Temporal bone imaging: Comparison of flat panel volume CT and multisection CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30:1419–1424.
Nguyen TD, Kosling S, Mlynski R, et al. Visualisation of passive middle ear implants by cone beam and multi-detector computed tomography: A comparative in vitro study. Eur Radiol 2016; 26:4538–4544.
Brisco J, Fuller K, Lee N, et al. Cone beam computed tomography for imaging orbital trauma—image quality and radiation dose compared with conventional multislice computed tomography. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 52:76–80.
De Cock J, Zanca F, Canning J, et al. A comparative study for image quality and radiation dose of a cone beam computed tomography scanner and a multislice computed tomography scanner for paranasal sinus imaging. Eur Radiol 2015; 25:1891–1900.
Veldhoen S, Schollchen M, Hanken H, et al. Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans. Eur Radiol 2017; 27:790–800.
Stratis A, Zhang G, Lopez-Rendon X, et al. Two examples of indication specific radiation dose calculations in dental CBCT and Multidetector CT scanners. Phys Med 2017; 41:71–77.
Diogo I, Franke N, Steinbach-Hundt S, et al. Differences of radiological artefacts in cochlear implantation in temporal bone and complete head. Cochlear Implants Int 2014; 15:112–117.