Cargando…

Interobserver variability of cochlear duct measurements in pediatric cochlear implant candidates

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the proposed cochlear duct length estimation based on the cochlear ‘A value’. Furthermore, we assessed the interobserver variability between radiology and otolaryngology attending physicians and otolaryngology trainees. METHODS: Thirteen pediatric...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salkic, Almir, Yildiz, Erdem, Baumgartner, Wolf-Dieter, Tokic, Lejla, Uscuplic, Sabrina, Sarihodzic, Senada, Brkic, Fuad, Harcinovic, Alen, Liu, David T., Brkic, Faris F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9988785/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36074160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07639-6
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the proposed cochlear duct length estimation based on the cochlear ‘A value’. Furthermore, we assessed the interobserver variability between radiology and otolaryngology attending physicians and otolaryngology trainees. METHODS: Thirteen pediatric cochlear implant candidates were retrospectively analyzed by three otolaryngology physicians (attending physician, second year, and fourth year trainees) and a radiology attending. The cochlear duct length was calculated based on the formula of Grover et al. The differences in acquired measurements between observers were compared using the Wilcoxon matched signed-rank test. RESULTS: The differences in measurements between the attending otolaryngologist and radiologist were not statistically different, while several significant differences were observed with regard to measurements of attending doctors compared to both residents. In particular, a significant difference between the second year otolaryngology resident and otolaryngology and radiology attending was observed for one side (right ear p = 0.034 and p = 0.012, respectively). Moreover, the fourth year resident calculated significantly different cochlear duct measurements when compared to the attending otolaryngologist (left ear p = 0.014) and radiologist (right ear p = 0.047). Interestingly, differently experienced otolaryngology residents provided significantly different measurements for both ears. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, cochlear duct length measurement according to the proposed method may be a reliable and cost-effective method. Indeed, otolaryngology training may be sufficient to provide measurements comparable to radiologists. On the other hand, additional efforts should be invested during otolaryngology training in terms of the evaluation of radiological imaging which may increase the capabilities of otolaryngology residents in this regard.