Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:22:15.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High-resolution computed tomography in evaluation of cochlear patency in implant candidates: a comparison with surgical findings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

Giuseppe N. Frau ,
William M. Luxford ,
William W. M. LO ,
Karen I. Berliner  and
Fred F. Telischi
Giuseppe N. Frau
Affiliation:
Gruppo Otologico, Piacenza, Italy (formerly, Research Fellow, House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, California), House Ear Clinic
William M. Luxford*
Affiliation:
House Ear Institute, Los Angels, California
William W. M. LO
Affiliation:
St Vincent Radiological Medical Group, Los Angeles, California
Karen I. Berliner
Affiliation:
House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, California
Fred F. Telischi
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida (formerly, Clinical Fellow, House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, California).
*
William M. Luxford, M.D., House Ear Clinic, 2100 W. Third Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057, USA. Fax: 213-484-5900
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is important in the evaluation of cochlear implant candidates. This study examines the accuracy of radiological assessment of cochlear patency in relation to findings at the time of surgery. Older and newer HRCT methods and attending and senior radiologist interpretations are compared in a large series of cochlear implant patients.

Subjects were 50 adults (22 to 74 years) and 31 children (2.4 to 11.7 years) who received either a 3M/House or a Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant. Attending radiologist reports were obtained by chart review and the scans were re-reviewed for this study by a senior radiologist. Accuracy in detecting cochlear ossification ranged from 86.4 per cent for attending radiologists, with all HRCT scans, to 94.7 per cent for the senior radiologist with newer HRCT scans. False positives were rare, but false negatives did occur. Overall, best results were obtained with newer HRCT scans and a senior radiologist.

Knowledge of the presence and extent of cochlear ossification is important to the implant surgeon and for patient counselling. Technical guidelines and a check list for interpretation of results are presented.

Keywords

Cochlear implantTomographyX-ray computedOssificationheterotopicCochlea

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 108 , Issue 9 , September 1994 , pp. 743 - 748
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Balkany, T., Gantz, B., Nadol, J. B. Jr (1988) Multichannel cochlear implants in partially ossified cochleas. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 97 (suppl. 135): 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brogan, M., Chakeres, D. W., Schmalbrock, P. (1991) High-resolution 3DFT MR imaging of the endolymphatic duct and soft tissues of the otic capsule. American Journal of Neuroradiologv 12: 1–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Casselman, J. W., Kuhweide, R., Diemling, M., Ampe, W., Dehaene, I., Meeus, L. (1993) Constructive interference in steady state-3DFT MR imaging of the inner ear and cerebellopontine angle. American Journal of Neuroradiology 14: 47–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Dreisbach, J. N., Balkany, T. J. (1988) The imaging evaluation of the cochlear implant candidate. In American Academy Otolaryngology Head-Neck Surgery Instructional Courses, vol 1. (Johnson, J. T., Blitzer, A., Ossoff, R., Thomas, J. R., eds.), Mosby Year Book, St Louis, pp 175–184.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, L. S., Luxford, W. M., Becker, T. S., House, W. F. (1984) Electrical stimulation of the auditory system in children deafened by meningitis. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 92: 700–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fayad, J., Moloy, P., Linthicutn, F. H. Jr. (1990) Cochlear otosclerosis: does bone formation affect cochlear implant surgery? American Journal of Otology 11: 196–200.Google ScholarPubMed
Green, J. D. Jr, Marion, M. S., Hinojosa, R. (1991) Labyrinthitis ossificans: histopathologic consideration for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 104: 320–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackler, R. K., Luxford, W. M., House, W. F. (1987a) Congenital malformations of the inner ear: a classification based on embryogenesis. Laryngoscope 97 (suppl. 40): 2–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackler, R. K., Luxford, W. M., House, W. F. (1987b) Sound detection with the cochlear implant in five ears of four children with congenital malformations of the cochlea. Laryngoscope 97 (suppl. 40): 15–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackler, R. K., Luxford, W. M, Schindler, R. A., McKerrow, W. S. (1987 c) Cochlear patency problems in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 97: 801–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laszig, R., Terwey, B., Ratimer, R. D., Hesse, G. (1988) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and high-resolution computer tomography (HRCT) in cochlear implant candidates. Scandinavian Audiology 17 (suppl. 30): 197–200.Google Scholar
Novak, M. A., Fifer, R. C, Barkmeier, J. C, Firsz, J. B. (1990) Labyrinthine ossification after meningitis: its implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 103: 351–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shelton, C., Luxford, W. M.Tonokawa, L. L., Lo, W. W. M., House, W. F. (1989) The narrow internal auditory canal in children: a contraindication to cochlear implants. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 100: 227–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tien, R. D., Felsberg, G. J., Macfall, J. (1992) Fast spin-echo high resolution MR imaging of the inner ear. American Journal of Roentgenology 159: 395–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucci, D. L., Lambert, P. R., Ruth, R. A. (1990) Trends in rehabilitation after cochlear implantation. Archives of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 116: 571–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiet, R. J., Pyle, G. M., O'Connor, C. A., Russell, E., Schramm, D. R. (1990) Computed tomography: how accurate a predictor for cochlear implantation? Laryngoscope 100: 687–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, A. B., Brown, S. C. (1987) Demographics of meningitisinduced hearing impairment: implications for immunization of children against Hemophilus influenzae type B. American Annals of the Deaf 132: 26–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed