Cargando…

Vermessung der Cochlea mittels eines Tablet-basierten Softwarepakets: Einfluss der Bildgebungsmodalität und des Untersucherhintergrunds

BACKGROUND: Cochlear duct length (CDL) is subject to significant individual variation. In the context of cochlear implantation, adapting the electrode array length to the CDL is of potential interest, as it has been associated with improvements in both speech recognition and sound quality. Using a t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weber, Lena, Kwok, Pingling, Picou, Erin M., Wendl, Christina, Bohr, Christopher, Marcrum, Steven C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Medizin 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9512738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35970933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00106-022-01208-3
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Cochlear duct length (CDL) is subject to significant individual variation. In the context of cochlear implantation, adapting the electrode array length to the CDL is of potential interest, as it has been associated with improvements in both speech recognition and sound quality. Using a tablet-based software package, it is possible to measure CDL at the level of the organ of Corti (CDL(OC)) to select appropriate electrode array lengths based on individual cochlear anatomy. OBJECTIVE: To identify effects of imaging modality and rater background on CDL estimates. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and flat-panel volume CT (fpVCT) scans of 10 patients (20 cochleae) were analyzed using the OTOPLAN software package (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria). Raters were an otorhinolaryngology (ORL) specialist, an ORL resident, and an audiologist. To analyze effects of rater background and imaging modality on CDL measurements, linear mixed models were constructed. RESULTS: Measurements showed mean CDL(OC)(fpVCT) = 36.69 ± 1.78 mm and CDL(OC)(MRI) = 36.81 ± 1.87 mm. Analyses indicated no significant effect of rater background (F(2, 105) = 0.84; p = 0.437) on CDL estimates. Imaging modality, on the other hand, significantly affected CDL (F (1, 105) = 20.70; p < 0.001), whereby estimates obtained using MRI were 0.89 mm larger than those obtained using fpVCT. CONCLUSION: No effect of rater background on CDL estimates could be identified, suggesting that comparable measurements could be obtained by personnel other than specially trained neurootologists. While imaging modality (fpVCT vs. MRI) did impact CDL results, the difference was small and of questionable clinical significance.