Automatic localization of cochlear implant electrodes using cone beam computed tomography images.
Automatic localization
Cochlear implant
Computed tomography
Electrodes
Journal
Biomedical engineering online
ISSN: 1475-925X
Titre abrégé: Biomed Eng Online
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147518
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jul 2024
10 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
05
02
2024
accepted:
29
05
2024
medline:
11
7
2024
pubmed:
11
7
2024
entrez:
10
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cochlear implants (CI) are implantable medical devices that enable the perception of sounds and the understanding of speech by electrically stimulating the auditory nerve in case of inner ear damage. The stimulation takes place via an array of electrodes surgically inserted in the cochlea. After CI implantation, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is used to evaluate the position of the electrodes. Moreover, CBCT is used in research studies to investigate the relationship between the position of the electrodes and the hearing outcome of CI user. In clinical routine, the estimation of the position of the CI electrodes is done manually, which is very time-consuming. The aim of this study was to optimize procedures of automatic electrode localization from CBCT data following CI implantation. For this, we analyzed the performance of automatic electrode localization for 150 CBCT data sets of 10 different types of electrode arrays. Our own implementation of the method by Noble and Dawant (Lecture notes in computer science (Including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), Springer, pp 152-159, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24571-3_19 ) for automated electrode localization served as a benchmark for evaluation. Differences in the detection rate and the localization accuracy across types of electrode arrays were evaluated and errors were classified. Based on this analysis, we developed a strategy to optimize procedures of automatic electrode localization. It was shown that particularly distantly spaced electrodes in combination with a deep insertion can lead to apical-basal confusions in the localization procedure. This confusion prevents electrodes from being detected or assigned correctly, leading to a deterioration in localization accuracy. We propose an extended cost function for automatic electrode localization methods that prevents double detection of electrodes to avoid apical-basal confusions. This significantly increased the detection rate by 11.15 percent points and improved the overall localization accuracy by 0.53 mm (1.75 voxels). In comparison to other methods, our proposed cost function does not require any prior knowledge about the individual cochlea anatomy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cochlear implants (CI) are implantable medical devices that enable the perception of sounds and the understanding of speech by electrically stimulating the auditory nerve in case of inner ear damage. The stimulation takes place via an array of electrodes surgically inserted in the cochlea. After CI implantation, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is used to evaluate the position of the electrodes. Moreover, CBCT is used in research studies to investigate the relationship between the position of the electrodes and the hearing outcome of CI user. In clinical routine, the estimation of the position of the CI electrodes is done manually, which is very time-consuming.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The aim of this study was to optimize procedures of automatic electrode localization from CBCT data following CI implantation. For this, we analyzed the performance of automatic electrode localization for 150 CBCT data sets of 10 different types of electrode arrays. Our own implementation of the method by Noble and Dawant (Lecture notes in computer science (Including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), Springer, pp 152-159, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24571-3_19 ) for automated electrode localization served as a benchmark for evaluation. Differences in the detection rate and the localization accuracy across types of electrode arrays were evaluated and errors were classified. Based on this analysis, we developed a strategy to optimize procedures of automatic electrode localization. It was shown that particularly distantly spaced electrodes in combination with a deep insertion can lead to apical-basal confusions in the localization procedure. This confusion prevents electrodes from being detected or assigned correctly, leading to a deterioration in localization accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We propose an extended cost function for automatic electrode localization methods that prevents double detection of electrodes to avoid apical-basal confusions. This significantly increased the detection rate by 11.15 percent points and improved the overall localization accuracy by 0.53 mm (1.75 voxels). In comparison to other methods, our proposed cost function does not require any prior knowledge about the individual cochlea anatomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38987764
doi: 10.1186/s12938-024-01249-5
pii: 10.1186/s12938-024-01249-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
65Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)
ID : EXC 2177/1
Organisme : European Research Council (ERC)
ID : READIHEAR No. 101044753-PI: WN
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Lenarz T. Cochlear implant—state of the art. Laryngorhinootologie. 2017;96:S123–51. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-101812 .
doi: 10.1055/s-0043-101812
Wilson BS, Dorman MF. Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res. 2008;242:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2008.06.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.06.005
Saeed SR, Selvadurai D, Beale T, Biggs N, Murray B, Gibson P, Risi F, Boyd P. The use of cone-beam computed tomography to determine cochlear implant electrode position in human temporal bones. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35:1338–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000295 .
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000295
Würfel W, Lanfermann H, Lenarz T, Majdani O. Cochlear length determination using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in a clinical setting. Hear Res. 2014;316:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2014.07.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.07.013
Braithwaite B, Kjer HM, Fagertun J, Ballester MAG, Dhanasingh A, Mistrik P, Gerber N, Paulsen RR. Cochlear implant electrode localization in post-operative CT using a spherical measure. In: Proceedings of international symposium on biomedical imaging 2016-June. 2016. p. 1329–1333. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI.2016.7493512
Chi Y, Wang J, Zhao Y, Noble JH, Dawant BM. A deep-learning-based method for the localization of cochlear implant electrodes in ct images. In: Proceedings of international symposium on biomedical imaging 2019-April. 2019. p. 1141–1145. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI.2019.8759536
Hachmann H, Nogueira W. Localization of cochlear implant electrodes from cone beam computed tomography using particle belief propagation. Benjamin Kr¨ Bodo Rosenhahn Leibniz University Hanover, Germany Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germ. 2021.
Noble JH, Dawant BM. Automatic graph-based localization of cochlear implant electrodes in CT. In: Lecture notes in computer science (Including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). Springer; 2015. p. 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24571-3_19
Noble JH, Schuman TA, Wright CG, Labadie RF, Dawant BM. Automatic identification of cochlear implant electrode arrays for post-operative assessment. Med Imaging 2011 Image Process. 2011;7962:796217. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.878490 .
doi: 10.1117/12.878490
Aschendorff A, Kubalek R, Turowski B, Zanella F, Hochmuth A, Schumacher M, Klenzner T, Laszig R. Quality control after cochlear implant surgery by means of rotational tomography. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26:34–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200501000-00007 .
doi: 10.1097/00129492-200501000-00007
Skinner MW, Holden TA, Whiting BR, Voie AH, Brunsden B, Neely JG, Saxon EA, Hullar TE, Finley CC. In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007;116:2–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940711600401 .
doi: 10.1177/000348940711600401
Verbist BM, Frijns JHM, Geleijns J, Van Buchem MA. Multisection CT as a valuable tool in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implant patients. Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26:424–9.
Wanna GB, Noble JH, Carlson ML, Gifford RH, Dietrich MS, Haynes DS, Dawant BM, Labadie RF. Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:S1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24728 .
doi: 10.1002/lary.24728
Wanna GB, Noble JH, McRackan TR, Dawant BM, Dietrich MS, Watkins LD, Rivas A, Schuman TA, Labadie RF. Assessment of electrode placement and audiological outcomes in bilateral cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32:428–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182096dc2 .
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182096dc2
Sismono F, Leblans M, Mancini L, Veneziano A, Zanini F, Dirckx J, Bernaerts A, de Foer B, Offeciers E, Zarowski A. 3D-localisation of cochlear implant electrode contacts in relation to anatomical structures from in vivo cone-beam computed tomography. Hear Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2022.108537 .
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2022.108537
Zhao Y, Dawant BM, Labadie RF, Noble JH. Automatic localization of closely spaced cochlear implant electrode arrays in clinical CTs. Med Phys. 2018;45:5030–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13185 .
doi: 10.1002/mp.13185
Bouix S, Siddiqi K, Tannenbaum A. Flux driven automatic centerline extraction. Med Image Anal. 2005;9:209–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2004.06.026 .
doi: 10.1016/j.media.2004.06.026
Zhao Y, Chakravorti S, Labadie RF, Dawant BM, Noble JH. Automatic graph-based method for localization of cochlear implant electrode arrays in clinical CT with sub-voxel accuracy. Medical Image Analysis 2019;52:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2018.11.005
Bennink E, Peters JPM, Wendrich AW, Vonken E, Van Zanten GA, Viergever MA. Automatic localization of cochlear implant electrode contacts in CT. Ear Hear. 2017;38:e376–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000438 .
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000438
Krüger B, Büchner A, Nogueira W. Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing. Hear Res. 2017;353:185–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.06.014 .
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.06.014