Comprehensive literature review on the application of the otological surgical planning software OTOPLAN® for cochlear implantation.
Umfassender Literaturüberblick über die Anwendung der otologisch-chirurgischen Planungssoftware OTOPLAN® bei der Cochleaimplantation. Englische Version.
Anatomy based fitting
Cochlear duct length
Computed tomography-based software ear/cochlear
Computer simulation
Imaging modalities (MRI, computer tomography [flat-panel volume CT])
Journal
HNO
ISSN: 1433-0458
Titre abrégé: HNO
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 2985099R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jun 2024
11 Jun 2024
Historique:
accepted:
28
11
2023
medline:
11
6
2024
pubmed:
11
6
2024
entrez:
11
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The size of the human cochlear, measured by the diameter of the basal turn, varies between 7 and 11 mm. For hearing rehabilitation with cochlear implants (CI), the size of the cochlear influences the individual frequency map and the choice of electrode length. OTOPLAN® (CAScination AG [Bern, Switzerland] in cooperation with MED-EL [Innsbruck, Austria]) is a software tool with CE marking for clinical applications in CI treatment which allows for precise pre-planning based on cochlear size. This literature review aims to analyze all published data on the application of OTOPLAN®. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were applied to identify relevant studies published in the PubMed search engine between January 2015 and February 2023 using the search terms "otoplan" [title/abstract] OR "anatomy-based fitting" [title/abstract] OR "otological software tool" [title/abstract] OR "computed tomography-based software AND cochlear" [title/abstract]. The systematic review of the literature identified 32 studies on clinical use of OTOPLAN® in CI treatment. Most studies were reported from Germany (7 out of 32), followed by Italy (5), Saudi Arabia (4), the USA (4), and Belgium (3); 2 studies each were from Austria and China, and 1 study from France, India, Norway, South Korea, and Switzerland. In the majority of studies (22), OTOPLAN® was used to assess cochlear size, followed by visualizing the electrode position using postoperative images (5), three-dimensional segmentation of temporal bone structures (4), planning the electrode insertion trajectory (3), creating a patient-specific frequency map (3), planning of a safe drilling path through the facial recess (3), and measuring of temporal bone structures (1). To date, OTOPLAN® is the only DICOM viewer with CE marking in the CI field that can process pre-, intra-, and postoperative images in the abovementioned applications. HINTERGRUND: Die Größe der menschlichen Cochlea, gemessen am Durchmesser der Basalwindung, schwankt zwischen 7 und 11 mm. Im Rahmen einer Hörrehabilitation durch ein Cochleaimplantat ist diese für die individuelle Zuordnung der Frequenzbänder und die Wahl der Elektrodenlänge von Bedeutung. OTOPLAN® (CAScination AG [Bern, Schweiz] in Kooperation mit MED-EL [Innsbruck, Österreich]) ist ein Softwaretool mit CE-Kennzeichnung für klinische Anwendungen in der Cochleaimplantat(CI)-Behandlung, welches die Vorplanung auf Grundlage der cochleären Größenparameter durchführt. Ziel dieser Literaturübersicht ist es, alle veröffentlichten Studien über die Anwendung von OTOPLAN® zu erfassen. Die PRISMA-Richtlinien (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) wurden angewandt, um relevante Studien zu identifizieren, die zwischen Januar 2015 und Februar 2023 in der Suchmaschine PubMed veröffentlicht wurden (unter Verwendung der Suchbegriffe „otoplan“ [Titel/Abstract] OR „anatomy-based fitting“ [Titel/Abstract] OR „otological software tool“ [Titel/Abstract] OR „computed tomography-based software AND cochlear“ [Titel/Abstract]). Bei der systematischen Durchsicht der Literatur wurden 32 Studien über den klinischen Einsatz von OTOPLAN® bei der CI-Behandlung gefunden. Die meisten Studien wurden von deutschen Arbeitsgruppen publiziert (7 von 32), gefolgt von Italien (5), Saudi-Arabien (4), USA (4) und Belgien (3). So stammten je 2 Studien aus Österreich und China, gefolgt von jeweils 1 Studie aus Frankreich, Indien, Norwegen, Südkorea und der Schweiz. In den meisten Studien (22) wurde OTOPLAN® zur Beurteilung der Cochleagröße verwendet, gefolgt von der Visualisierung der Elektrodenposition anhand postoperativer Bilder (5), der dreidimensionalen (3-D-)Segmentierung der Felsenbeinstrukturen (4), der Planung der Elektrodeneinführungstrajektorie (3), der Erstellung einer patientenspezifischen Frequenzbandzuordnung (3), der Planung eines sicheren Bohrpfads durch den Recessus facialis (3), und der Messung von Felsenbeinstrukturen (1). OTOPLAN® ist bisher der einzige DICOM-Viewer mit CE-Kennzeichnung im CI-Bereich, der prä-, intra- und postoperative Bilder mit den genannten Anwendungen verarbeiten kann.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The size of the human cochlear, measured by the diameter of the basal turn, varies between 7 and 11 mm. For hearing rehabilitation with cochlear implants (CI), the size of the cochlear influences the individual frequency map and the choice of electrode length. OTOPLAN® (CAScination AG [Bern, Switzerland] in cooperation with MED-EL [Innsbruck, Austria]) is a software tool with CE marking for clinical applications in CI treatment which allows for precise pre-planning based on cochlear size. This literature review aims to analyze all published data on the application of OTOPLAN®.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were applied to identify relevant studies published in the PubMed search engine between January 2015 and February 2023 using the search terms "otoplan" [title/abstract] OR "anatomy-based fitting" [title/abstract] OR "otological software tool" [title/abstract] OR "computed tomography-based software AND cochlear" [title/abstract].
RESULTS
RESULTS
The systematic review of the literature identified 32 studies on clinical use of OTOPLAN® in CI treatment. Most studies were reported from Germany (7 out of 32), followed by Italy (5), Saudi Arabia (4), the USA (4), and Belgium (3); 2 studies each were from Austria and China, and 1 study from France, India, Norway, South Korea, and Switzerland. In the majority of studies (22), OTOPLAN® was used to assess cochlear size, followed by visualizing the electrode position using postoperative images (5), three-dimensional segmentation of temporal bone structures (4), planning the electrode insertion trajectory (3), creating a patient-specific frequency map (3), planning of a safe drilling path through the facial recess (3), and measuring of temporal bone structures (1).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
To date, OTOPLAN® is the only DICOM viewer with CE marking in the CI field that can process pre-, intra-, and postoperative images in the abovementioned applications.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
UNASSIGNED
HINTERGRUND: Die Größe der menschlichen Cochlea, gemessen am Durchmesser der Basalwindung, schwankt zwischen 7 und 11 mm. Im Rahmen einer Hörrehabilitation durch ein Cochleaimplantat ist diese für die individuelle Zuordnung der Frequenzbänder und die Wahl der Elektrodenlänge von Bedeutung. OTOPLAN® (CAScination AG [Bern, Schweiz] in Kooperation mit MED-EL [Innsbruck, Österreich]) ist ein Softwaretool mit CE-Kennzeichnung für klinische Anwendungen in der Cochleaimplantat(CI)-Behandlung, welches die Vorplanung auf Grundlage der cochleären Größenparameter durchführt. Ziel dieser Literaturübersicht ist es, alle veröffentlichten Studien über die Anwendung von OTOPLAN® zu erfassen.
MATERIALIEN UND METHODEN
UNASSIGNED
Die PRISMA-Richtlinien (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) wurden angewandt, um relevante Studien zu identifizieren, die zwischen Januar 2015 und Februar 2023 in der Suchmaschine PubMed veröffentlicht wurden (unter Verwendung der Suchbegriffe „otoplan“ [Titel/Abstract] OR „anatomy-based fitting“ [Titel/Abstract] OR „otological software tool“ [Titel/Abstract] OR „computed tomography-based software AND cochlear“ [Titel/Abstract]).
ERGEBNISSE
UNASSIGNED
Bei der systematischen Durchsicht der Literatur wurden 32 Studien über den klinischen Einsatz von OTOPLAN® bei der CI-Behandlung gefunden. Die meisten Studien wurden von deutschen Arbeitsgruppen publiziert (7 von 32), gefolgt von Italien (5), Saudi-Arabien (4), USA (4) und Belgien (3). So stammten je 2 Studien aus Österreich und China, gefolgt von jeweils 1 Studie aus Frankreich, Indien, Norwegen, Südkorea und der Schweiz. In den meisten Studien (22) wurde OTOPLAN® zur Beurteilung der Cochleagröße verwendet, gefolgt von der Visualisierung der Elektrodenposition anhand postoperativer Bilder (5), der dreidimensionalen (3-D-)Segmentierung der Felsenbeinstrukturen (4), der Planung der Elektrodeneinführungstrajektorie (3), der Erstellung einer patientenspezifischen Frequenzbandzuordnung (3), der Planung eines sicheren Bohrpfads durch den Recessus facialis (3), und der Messung von Felsenbeinstrukturen (1).
SCHLUSSFOLGERUNG
UNASSIGNED
OTOPLAN® ist bisher der einzige DICOM-Viewer mit CE-Kennzeichnung im CI-Bereich, der prä-, intra- und postoperative Bilder mit den genannten Anwendungen verarbeiten kann.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(ger)
HINTERGRUND: Die Größe der menschlichen Cochlea, gemessen am Durchmesser der Basalwindung, schwankt zwischen 7 und 11 mm. Im Rahmen einer Hörrehabilitation durch ein Cochleaimplantat ist diese für die individuelle Zuordnung der Frequenzbänder und die Wahl der Elektrodenlänge von Bedeutung. OTOPLAN® (CAScination AG [Bern, Schweiz] in Kooperation mit MED-EL [Innsbruck, Österreich]) ist ein Softwaretool mit CE-Kennzeichnung für klinische Anwendungen in der Cochleaimplantat(CI)-Behandlung, welches die Vorplanung auf Grundlage der cochleären Größenparameter durchführt. Ziel dieser Literaturübersicht ist es, alle veröffentlichten Studien über die Anwendung von OTOPLAN® zu erfassen.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38861031
doi: 10.1007/s00106-023-01417-4
pii: 10.1007/s00106-023-01417-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Achena A, Achena F, Dragonetti AG et al (2022) Cochlear Implant Evolving Indications: Our Outcomes in Adult Patients. Audiol Res 12:414–422
pubmed: 36004950
pmcid: 9404933
doi: 10.3390/audiolres12040042
Alahmadi A, Abdelsamad Y, Almuhawas F et al (2023) Cochlear Implantation: The Volumetric Measurement of Vestibular Aqueduct and Gusher Prediction. J Pers Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13020171
doi: 10.3390/jpm13020171
Almuhawas FA, Dhanasingh AE, Mitrovic D et al (2020) Age as a Factor of Growth in Mastoid Thickness and Skull Width. Otol Neurotol 41:709–714
pubmed: 32080026
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002585
Andersen SAW, Bergman M, Keith JP et al (2021) Segmentation of Temporal Bone Anatomy for Patient-Specific Virtual Reality Simulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 130:724–730
pubmed: 33143454
doi: 10.1177/0003489420970217
Auinger AB, Dahm V, Liepins R et al (2021) Robotic Cochlear Implant Surgery: Imaging-Based Evaluation of Feasibility in Clinical Routine. Front Surg 8:742219
pubmed: 34660683
pmcid: 8511493
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.742219
Bhavana K, Timmaraju S, Kumar V et al (2022) OTOPLAN-Based Study of Intracochlear Electrode Position Through Cochleostomy and Round Window in Transcanal Veria Technique. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 74:575–581
pubmed: 36514425
pmcid: 9741677
doi: 10.1007/s12070-022-03228-5
Breitsprecher T, Dhanasingh A, Schulze M et al (2022) CT imaging-based approaches to cochlear duct length estimation—a human temporal bone study. Eur Radiol 32:1014–1023
pubmed: 34463797
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08189-x
Buchner A, Illg A, Majdani O et al (2017) Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis. PLoS ONE 12:e174900
pubmed: 28505158
pmcid: 5432071
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174900
Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buchman CA et al (2021) Long-Term Influence of Electrode Array Length on Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users. Laryngoscope 131:892–897
pubmed: 32738069
doi: 10.1002/lary.28949
Chen C, Zeng C, Weng S et al (2023) The feasibility of cochlear implantation in early infancy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 165:111433
pubmed: 36634570
doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111433
Chen Y, Chen J, Tan H et al (2021) Cochlear Duct Length Calculation: Comparison Between Using Otoplan and Curved Multiplanar Reconstruction in Nonmalformed Cochlea. Otol Neurotol 42:e875–e880
pubmed: 33710146
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003119
Cooperman SP, Aaron KA, Fouad A et al (2021) Assessment of Inter- and Intra-Rater Reliability of Tablet-Based Software to Measure Cochlear Duct Length. Otol Neurotol 42:558–565
pubmed: 33492059
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003015
Cooperman SP, Aaron KA, Fouad A et al (2022) Influence of electrode to cochlear duct length ratio on post-operative speech understanding outcomes. Cochlear Implants Int 23:59–69
pubmed: 34590531
doi: 10.1080/14670100.2021.1979289
Dhanasingh A, Hochmair I (2021) Signal processing & audio processors. Acta Otolaryngol 141:106–134
pubmed: 33818264
doi: 10.1080/00016489.2021.1888504
Dhanasingh A, Jolly C (2017) An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res 356:93–103
pubmed: 29102129
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.10.005
Dhanasingh AE, Weiss NM, Erhard V et al (2022) A novel three-step process for the identification of inner ear malformation types. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 7:2020–2028
pubmed: 36544941
pmcid: 9764783
doi: 10.1002/lio2.936
Di Maro F, Carner M, Sacchetto A et al (2022) Frequency reallocation based on cochlear place frequencies in cochlear implants: a pilot study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279(10):4719–4725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-07245-y
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-07245-y
pubmed: 35032205
pmcid: 9474446
Dutrieux N, Quatre R, Pean V et al (2022) Correlation Between Cochlear Length, Insertion Angle, and Tonotopic Mismatch for MED-EL FLEX28 Electrode Arrays. Otol Neurotol 43:48–55
pubmed: 34538852
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003337
Escude B, James C, Deguine O et al (2006) The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurootol 11(Suppl 1):27–33
pubmed: 17063008
doi: 10.1159/000095611
Fan T, Xiang MY, Li Y et al (2022) Effect of Electrode Insertion Angle on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Adult and Children Patients with Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2022:9914716
pubmed: 36052159
pmcid: 9427248
doi: 10.1155/2022/9914716
Franke-Trieger A, Jolly C, Darbinjan A et al (2014) Insertion depth angles of cochlear implant arrays with varying length: a temporal bone study. Otol Neurotol 35:58–63
pubmed: 24335932
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000211
George-Jones NA, Tolisano AM, Kutz JW Jr. et al (2020) Comparing Cochlear Duct Lengths Between CT and MR Images Using an Otological Surgical Planning Software. Otol Neurotol 41:e1118–e1121
pubmed: 32925847
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002777
Grover M, Sharma S, Singh SN et al (2018) Measuring cochlear duct length in Asian population: worth giving a thought! Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275:725–728
pubmed: 29332169
doi: 10.1007/s00405-018-4868-9
Hajr E, Abdelsamad Y, Almuhawas F et al (2023) Cochlear Implantation: The use of OTOPLAN Reconstructed Images in Trajectory Identification. Ear Nose Throat J. https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613221134742
doi: 10.1177/01455613221134742
Helbig S, Adel Y, Leinung M et al (2018) Hearing Preservation Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation Depending on the Angle of Insertion: Indication for Electric or Electric-Acoustic Stimulation. Otol Neurotol 39:834–841
pubmed: 29912820
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001862
Helpard L, Li H, Rask-Andersen H et al (2020) Characterization of the human helicotrema: implications for cochlear duct length and frequency mapping. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 49:1–7
doi: 10.1186/s40463-019-0398-8
Jablonski GE, Falkenberg-Jensen B, Bunne M et al (2021) Fusion of Technology in Cochlear Implantation Surgery: Investigation of Fluoroscopically Assisted Robotic Electrode Insertion. Front Surg 8:741401
pubmed: 34820415
pmcid: 8606737
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.741401
Khurayzi T, Almuhawas F, Sanosi A (2020) Direct measurement of cochlear parameters for automatic calculation of the cochlear duct length. Ann Saudi Med 40:212–218
pubmed: 32493102
pmcid: 7270618
doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2020.218
Kurz A, Müller-Graff FT, Hagen R et al (2022) One Click Is Not Enough: Anatomy-Based Fitting in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users. Otol Neurotol 43:1176–1180
pubmed: 36351223
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003731
Landsberger DM, Svrakic M, Roland JT Jr. et al (2015) The Relationship Between Insertion Angles, Default Frequency Allocations, and Spiral Ganglion Place Pitch in Cochlear Implants. Ear Hear 36:e207–213
pubmed: 25860624
pmcid: 4549170
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000163
Lee SY, Bae JY, Carandang M et al (2021) Modiolar Proximity of Slim Modiolar Electrodes and Cochlear Duct Length: Correlation for Potential Basis of Customized Cochlear Implantation With Perimodiolar Electrodes. Ear Hear 42:323–333
pubmed: 32826506
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000920
Li H, Helpard L, Ekeroot J et al (2021) Three-dimensional tonotopic mapping of the human cochlea based on synchrotron radiation phase-contrast imaging. Sci Rep 11:4437
pubmed: 33627724
pmcid: 7904830
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83225-w
Li J, Kang S, Du H et al (2022) Analysis of Cochlear Parameters in Paediatric Inner Ears with Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct and Patent Cochlea. J Pers Med 12(10):1666. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12101666
doi: 10.3390/jpm12101666
pubmed: 36294805
pmcid: 9605104
Lovato A, De Filippis C (2019) Utility of OTOPLAN Reconstructed Images for Surgical Planning of Cochlear Implantation in a Case of Post-meningitis Ossification. Otol Neurotol 40:e60–e61
pubmed: 30531645
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002079
Lovato A, Marioni G, Gamberini L et al (2020) OTOPLAN in Cochlear Implantation for Far-advanced Otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 41:e1024–e1028
pubmed: 32569151
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002722
Margeta J, Hussain R, Lopez Diez P et al (2022) A Web-Based Automated Image Processing Research Platform for Cochlear Implantation-Related Studies. J Clin Med 11(22):6640. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11226640
doi: 10.3390/jcm11226640
pubmed: 36431117
pmcid: 9699139
Mertens G, Van De Heyning P, Vanderveken O et al (2022) The smaller the frequency-to-place mismatch the better the hearing outcomes in cochlear implant recipients? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279:1875–1883
pubmed: 34131770
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-06899-y
Mertens G, Van Rompaey V, Van De Heyning P et al (2020) Prediction of the Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion Depth: Clinical Applicability of two Analytical Cochlear Models. Sci Rep 10:3340
pubmed: 32094372
pmcid: 7039896
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58648-6
Mlynski R, Lusebrink A, Oberhoffner T et al (2021) Mapping Cochlear Duct Length to Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials in Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol 42:e254–e260
pubmed: 33273309
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002957
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
pmcid: 2714657
doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535
Müller-Graff F‑T, Ilgen L, Schendzielorz P et al (2022) Implementation of secondary reconstructions of flat-panel volume computed tomography (fpVCT) and otological planning software for anatomically based cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279:2309–2319
pubmed: 34101009
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-06924-0
Müller-Graff FT, Voelker J, Kurz A et al (2023) Accuracy of radiological prediction of electrode position with otological planning software and implications of high-resolution imaging. Cochlear Implants Int 24(3):144–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2022.2159128
doi: 10.1080/14670100.2022.2159128
pubmed: 36617441
Niu XM, Ping L, Gao RZ et al (2021) Selection of cochlear electrode array implantation lengths and outcomes in patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 101:108–114
pubmed: 33455125
Niu Y, Wang Z, Liu Y et al (2010) Radiation dose to the lens using different temporal bone CT scanning protocols. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:226–229
pubmed: 19892812
pmcid: 7964151
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1807
O’connell BP, Hunter JB, Gifford RH et al (2016) Electrode Location and Audiologic Performance After Cochlear Implantation: A Comparative Study Between Nucleus CI422 and CI512 Electrode Arrays. Otol Neurotol 37:1032–1035
pubmed: 27525618
pmcid: 4988342
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001140
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505
pubmed: 22681860
pmcid: 3418594
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0
Ping L, Barazzetti L, Chandran V et al (2015) Facial nerve image enhancement from CBCT using supervised learning technique. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2015:2964–2967
Rathgeb C, Dematte M, Yacoub A et al (2019) Clinical Applicability of a Preoperative Angular Insertion Depth Prediction Method for Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol 40:1011–1017
pubmed: 31419213
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002304
Ricci G, Lapenna R, Gambacorta V et al (2022) OTOPLAN, Cochlear Implant, and Far-Advanced Otosclerosis: Could the Use of Software Improve the Surgical Final Indication? J Int Adv Otol 18:74–78
pubmed: 35193850
pmcid: 9449992
doi: 10.5152/iao.2022.21329
Schatzer R, Vermeire K, Visser D et al (2014) Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch. Hear Res 309:26–35
pubmed: 24252455
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.11.003
Schendzielorz P, Ilgen L, Mueller-Graff T et al (2021) Precise evaluation of the cochlear duct length by flat-panel volume computed tomography (fpVCT)—implication of secondary reconstructions. Otol Neurotol 42:e294–e303
pubmed: 33555750
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002951
Schurzig D, Timm ME, Batsoulis C et al (2018) A Novel Method for Clinical Cochlear Duct Length Estimation toward Patient-Specific Cochlear Implant Selection. OTO Open 2:2473974X18800238
pubmed: 30719505
pmcid: 6348517
doi: 10.1177/2473974X18800238
Schwab SA, Eberle S, Adamietz B et al (2012) Comparison of 128-section single-shot technique with conventional spiral multisection CT for imaging of the temporal bone. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:E55–E60
pubmed: 21454412
pmcid: 8050431
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2420
Services USDOHaH Cochlear Implants.
Spiegel JL, Polterauer D, Hempel JM et al (2022) Variation of the cochlear anatomy and cochlea duct length: analysis with a new tablet-based software. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279:1851–1861
pubmed: 34050805
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-06889-0
Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham BH et al (2007) Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:220–233
pubmed: 17318276
pmcid: 2394499
doi: 10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9
Thimsen V, Mantsopoulos K, Liebscher T et al (2023) Association between lateral wall electrode array insertion parameters and audiological outcomes in bilateral cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 280:2707–2714
pubmed: 36436080
doi: 10.1007/s00405-022-07756-2
Topsakal V, Heuninck E, Matulic M et al (2022) First Study in Men Evaluating a Surgical Robotic Tool Providing Autonomous Inner Ear Access for Cochlear Implantation. Front Neurol 13:804507
pubmed: 35386404
pmcid: 8979022
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.804507
Topsakal V, Matulic M, Assadi MZ et al (2020) Comparison of the Surgical Techniques and Robotic Techniques for Cochlear Implantation in Terms of the Trajectories Toward the Inner Ear. J Int Adv Otol 16:3–7
pubmed: 32209514
pmcid: 7224420
doi: 10.5152/iao.2020.8113
Weber L, Kwok P, Picou EM et al (2022) Measuring the cochlea using a tablet-based software package: influence of imaging modality and rater background. HNO 70:769–777
pubmed: 35970933
pmcid: 9512738
doi: 10.1007/s00106-022-01208-3