Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:56:53.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radiological measurement of cochlear dimensions in cochlear hypoplasia and its effect on cochlear implant selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2021

G Pamuk ,
A E Pamuk Open the ORCID record for A E Pamuk [Opens in a new window] ,
A Akgöz ,
M D Bajin ,
B Özgen  and
L Sennaroğlu
G Pamuk
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kırıkkale Yüksek İhtisas Hospital, Kırıkkale, Turkey
A E Pamuk*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kırıkkale Yüksek İhtisas Hospital, Kırıkkale, Turkey
A Akgöz
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
M D Bajin
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
B Özgen
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
L Sennaroğlu
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Ahmet Erim Pamuk, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kırıkkale Yüksek İhtisas Hospital, 71400 Kırıkkale, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +90 318 215 1195
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To determine the effect of cochlear dimensions on cochlear implant selection in cochlear hypoplasia patients.

Methods

Temporal bone computed tomography images of 36 patients diagnosed with cochlear hypoplasia between 2010 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and compared with those of 40 controls without sensorineural hearing loss.

Results

Basal turn length and mid-modiolar height were significantly lower in the cochlear hypoplasia patients with subtypes I, II and III than in the control group (p < 0.001). Mid-scalar length was significantly shorter in subtype I–III patients as compared with the control group (p < 0.001). In addition, cochlear canal length (measured along the lateral wall) was significantly shorter in subtype I–IV patients than in the control group (subtypes I–III, p < 0.001; subtype IV, p = 0.002)

Conclusion

Cochlear hypoplasia should be considered if basal turn length is less than 7.5 mm and mid-modiolar height is less than 3.42 mm. The cochlear implant should be selected according to cochlear hypoplasia subgroup. It is critically important to differentiate subtype II from incomplete partition type I and subtype III from a normal cochlea, to ensure the most appropriate implant electrode selection so as to optimise cochlear implantation outcomes.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantationHearing Loss, SensorineuralEar, InnerCochlear Diseases
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 6 , June 2021 , pp. 501 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

Dr A E Pamuk takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Jackler, RK, Luxford, WM, House, WF. Congenital malformations of the inner ear: a classification based on embryogenesis. Laryngoscope 1987;97:2–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sennaroglu, L. Cochlear implantation in inner ear malformations--a review article. Cochlear Implants Int 2010;11:4–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sennaroglu, L, Saatci, I. A new classification for cochleovestibular malformations. Laryngoscope 2002;112:2230–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sennaroglu, L, Sarac, S, Ergin, T. Surgical results of cochlear implantation in malformed cochlea. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:615–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sennaroglu, L, Bajin, MD, Pamuk, E, Tahir, E. Cochlear hypoplasia type four with anteriorly displaced facial nerve canal. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:407–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gulya, A. Anatomy of the Temporal Bone with Surgical Implications, 3rd edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2007;251–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sennaroglu, L. Histopathology of inner ear malformations: do we have enough evidence to explain pathophysiology? Cochlear Implants Int 2016;17:3–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pamuk, G, Pamuk, AE, Akgöz, A, Öztürk, E, Bajin, MD, Sennaroğlu, L. A study on modelling cochlear duct mid-scalar length based on high-resolution computed tomography, and its effect on peri-modiolar and mid-scalar implant selection. J Laryngol Otol 2019;133:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takagi, A, Sando, I. Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction: a method of measuring temporal bone structures including the length of the cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989;98:515–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wurfel, W, Lanfermann, H, Lenarz, T, Majdani, O. Cochlear length determination using cone beam computed tomography in a clinical setting. Hear Res 2014;316:65–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meng, J, Li, S, Zhang, F, Li, Q, Qin, Z. Cochlear size and shape variability and implications in cochlear implantation surgery. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1307–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erixon, E, Hogstorp, H, Wadin, K, Rask-Andersen, H. Variational anatomy of the human cochlea: implications for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:14–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sennaroglu, L, Bajin, MD. Classification and current management of inner ear malformations. Balkan Med J 2017;34:397–411CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adunka, O, Kiefer, J. Impact of electrode insertion depth on intracochlear trauma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;135:374–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blamey, PJ, Pyman, BC, Gordon, M, Clark, GM, Brown, AM, Dowell, RC et al. Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;101:342–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J, Nadol, JB Jr, Eddington, DK. Depth of electrode insertion and postoperative performance in humans with cochlear implants: a histopathologic study. Audiol Neurootol 2010;15:323–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skinner, MW, Ketten, DR, Holden, LK, Harding, GW, Smith, PG, Gates, GA et al. CT-derived estimation of cochlear morphology and electrode array position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2002;3:332–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed