Comparing Cochlear Duct Lengths Between CT and MR Images Using an Otological Surgical Planning Software.
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:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
entrez:
14
9
2020
pubmed:
15
9
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We sought to examine the intra- and interobserver variability in measuring the cochlear duct length (CDL) from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images versus computed tomography (CT) images using an otological surgical planning software that uses measurements of the basal turn diameter and cochlear width to estimate the CDL. Twenty-one adult cochlear implant patients with preoperative MRI and CT images. Three fellowship-trained neurotologists served as the raters in the study. One rater measured the CDL using preoperative CT scans to serve as the benchmark. Two of the raters measured the CDL on preoperative MRI scans. One rater also remeasured the scans using MRI images after a period of 1 week to assess intraobserver variability. Intraclass correlational coefficients were calculated to assess for intra- and interobserver agreement. The mean CDL measured from the CT scans was 32.7 ± 2.0 mm (range 29.4 - 37.6 mm). The mean difference between the raters when measuring the CDL using MRI scans was -0.15 ± 2.1 mm (range -3.2 to 4.3 mm). The intraclass correlational coefficients for inter-rater reliability of CDL determination using MRI scans was judged as fair to excellent (0.68; 95% CI 0.41-0.84). The intrarater reliability of CDL determination using MRI scans was judged at fair to excellent (0.73; 95% CI 0.491-0.866). We demonstrate that a validated otological surgical planning software for estimating the CDL preoperatively had comparable performance using MRI scans versus the gold-standard CT scans.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32925847
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002777
pii: 00129492-202010000-00019
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1118-e1121Références
O’Connell BP, Cakir A, Hunter JB, et al. Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37:10161023.
Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2013; 34:342360.
Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK, et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29:920928.
Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Gifford RH, et al. Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32:962968.
Koch RW, Elfarnawany M, Zhu N, Ladak HM, Agrawal SK. Evaluation of cochlear duct length computations using synchrotron radiation phase-contrast imaging. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38:e92e99.
Landsberger DM, Svrakic M, Roland JT, Svirsky M. The relationship between insertion angles, default frequency allocations, and spiral ganglion place pitch in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2015; 36:e207e213.
Koch RW, Ladak HM, Elfarnawany M, Agrawal SK. Measuring Cochlear Duct Length—a historical analysis of methods and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 46:19.
Verbist BM, Skinner MW, Cohen LT, et al. Consensus panel on a cochlear coordinate system applicable in histologic, physiologic, and radiologic studies of the human cochlea. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31:722730.
Erixon E, Rask-Andersen H. How to predict cochlear length before cochlear implantation surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2013; 133:12581265.
Rivas A, Cakir A, Hunter JB, et al. Automatic cochlear duct length estimation for selection of cochlear implant electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38:339346.
Lexow GJ, Kluge M, Gellrich NC, Lenarz T, Majdani O, Rau TS. On the accuracy of cochlear duct length measurement in computed tomographic images. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 275:10771085.
Schurzig D, Timm ME, Batsoulis C, et al. A novel method for clinical cochlear duct length estimation toward patient-specific cochlear implant selection. OTO Open 2018; 2:2473974X18800238.
Iyaniwura JE, Elfarnawany M, Ladak HM, Agrawal SK. An automated A-value measurement tool for accurate cochlear duct length estimation. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 47:5.
Escude B, James C, Deguine O, Cochard N, Eter E, Fraysse B. The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurootol 2006; 11: (suppl 1): 2733.
Alexiades G, Dhanasingh A, Jolly C. Method to estimate the complete and two-turn cochlear duct length. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36:904907.
Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Brown KD, O’Connell BP. Validating a new tablet-based tool in the determination of cochlear implant angular insertion depth. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40:10061010.
Nash R, Otero S, Lavy J. Use of MRI to determine cochlear duct length in patients undergoing cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int 2019; 20:5761.
Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assessment 1994; 6:284290.
Gstoettner W, Plenk H Jr, Franz P, et al. Cochlear implant deep electrode insertion: Extent of insertional trauma. Acta Otolaryngol 1997; 117:274277.