Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:38:58.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

High-resolution computed tomography and pure-tone audiometry in patients with otosclerosis in the spongiotic phase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2022

O P L Zanini*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Federal University of Paraná Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
L O Coelho
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Diagnostic Imaging – DAPI, Paraná, Brazil
R Hamerschmidt
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Federal University of Paraná Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
M Buschle
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Federal University of Paraná Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
J E F Matias
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Federal University of Paraná Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Otávio Pereira Lima Zanini, Avenida Iguaçu, 3233, Curitiba, Brazil, CEP 80240-031 E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

There is no consensus in the literature regarding the relationship between high-resolution computed tomography findings and hearing thresholds in pure-tone audiometry in otosclerosis. This study evaluated the association between high-resolution computed tomography findings and pure-tone audiometry in otosclerosis in the spongiotic phase.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted of 57 ears with surgically confirmed stapes fixation and tomographic findings. Air conduction and bone conduction thresholds on audiometry, and air–bone gap, were analysed.

Results

There were no correlations between sites affected by otospongiosis and air conduction threshold, bone conduction threshold or air–bone gap in the analysed tomographic images, but the diameter of the otospongiotic focus was greater in the presence of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum.

Conclusion

There were no relevant associations between high-resolution computed tomography findings and pure-tone audiometric measurements. However, the diameter of the otospongiotic focus was greater in the presence of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum.

Type
Main Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Introduction

High-resolution computed tomography (CT) of the temporal bone, using bone-specific parameters and millimetric sections, is the imaging method of choice to evaluate morphological and topographic characteristics, and examine activity of otospongiotic foci in otosclerosis, and to establish a differential diagnosis between otosclerosis and other diseases with similar clinical manifestations.Reference Vicente, Penido, Yamashita and Albernaz1Reference Berrettini, Ravecca, Volterrani, Neri and Forli3 This imaging method reveals with precision the presence of active or spongiotic otosclerotic lesions caused by bone demineralisation, including hypodense (single, multiple or confluent) foci in the otic capsule.Reference Vicente, Penido, Yamashita and Albernaz1 Despite correlating well with histological changes in otosclerosis, high-resolution CT has limitations in detecting the inactive (sclerotic) phase of otosclerosis when the density of the lesion is similar to that of the normal otic capsule.Reference Kawase, Naganawa, Sone, Ikeda and Ishigaki4,Reference Wycherly, Berkowitz, Noone and Kim5

Some studies have evaluated the association between high-resolution CT findings and audiometric data in patients with otospongiosis. Since the 1970s, studies have shown controversial results in this regard, with some not even considering such association,Reference Schuknecht6Reference Zhu, Sha, Zhuang, Olszewski, Jiang and Xu10 suggesting that it only occurs in the presence of demineralisation. In contrast, other studies have shown otospongiotic foci to be responsible for sensorineural hearing loss, suggesting an association between their location and pure-tone audiometry measures.Reference Parahy and Linthicum11Reference Marx, Lagleyre, Escudé, Demeslay, Elhadi and Deguine21 Of note, Png et al.Reference Png, Pang, Karandikar, Goh, Yeo and Yuen22 recently found no relationship between tomographic and audiometric findings in this setting. These conflicting results may be a result of different sample sizes or otosclerosis phases across the studies, and diverse ethnicities in the populations studied.

Based on these considerations, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the association between pure-tone audiometry measures and tomographic findings in otospongiosis. Secondary aims of the study included the analysis of associations between pure-tone audiometry measures and: (1) the distribution of otospongiotic foci; (2) the extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum; and (3) the diameter of the spongiotic foci.

Materials and methods

The study protocol was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Brazil (protocol number: 3.327.384; 15 May 2019).

This cross-sectional, retrospective study consisted of a review of medical records of patients who had undergone stapedotomy and had otospongiosis confirmed during the procedure. The surgical procedures were performed between 2010 and 2018 at a specialised hospital in southern Brazil.

Collected data included information on pure-tone audiometry measures and images obtained by high-resolution CT scanning of the temporal bone, all of which were conducted at the same diagnostic centre.

The inclusion criteria comprised the following: (1) stapedotomy patients who had undergone pure-tone audiometric evaluation and high-resolution CT scanning of the temporal bone during pre-operative evaluation; (2) audiogram findings with measurement of air conduction and bone conduction thresholds; and (3) tomographic findings with confirmed presence of otospongiotic foci. Patients were excluded if they had undergone audiometric or tomographic evaluation at a diagnostic centre other than the study site. Of 173 ears subjected to stapedotomy during the study period, 57 ears (36 patients) fulfilled the criteria for inclusion.

The minimum thresholds for detecting pure tones were assessed and recorded in audiograms, using air and bone conduction and air–bone gap at frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz. Air conduction testing measured audiometric thresholds at frequencies of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 kHz. Bone conduction testing measured the thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 4 kHz. The air–bone gap was calculated as the difference between the air conduction threshold and the bone conduction threshold. The calculation also included the four-tone average of air conduction threshold, bone conduction threshold and air–bone gap at frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz.

Tomographic evaluation included topographic information related to: otospongiotic involvement of the fissula ante fenestram, stapes and vestibule; extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum in the basal turn, middle turn and apical turn; and largest diameter of the otospongiotic focus (Figure 1).

Fig. 1. Tomographic images showing: (a) otospongiotic focus affecting the fissula ante fenestram; (b) contact of the otospongiotic focus with the endosteum of the vestibule; (c) contact of the otospongiotic focus with the endosteum of the basal turn of the cochlea; (d) contact of the otospongiotic focus with the endosteum of the middle turn of the cochlea; (e) contact of the otospongiotic focus with the endosteum of the apical turn of the cochlea; and (f) measurement of the largest diameter of the otospongiotic focus (line). Arrows indicate otospongiotic focus.

The tomographic images, obtained using volumetric acquisitions with 0.625 mm axial section thickness, were read by a radiologist experienced in temporal bone analysis and blinded to the audiometric results.

The analysis included the frequency of otospongiotic foci, extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum, and association with air and bone conduction audiometry, air–bone gap, diameter of the otospongiotic foci, four-tone average and hearing loss.

Statistical analysis

Measures of central tendency and dispersion are expressed as mean ± standard deviation values, and, for asymmetrical distribution, median and interquartile range values. The assumption of normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test.

Statistical analyses were performed using the student's t-test, factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA), ANOVA for repeated measures with post hoc Duncan's test, Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA with post hoc Mann–Whitney test, and Pearson's correlation. The sample size was estimated considering a test power of 95 per cent, a significance level of 5 per cent, a magnitude of effect of 15 points and a standard deviation of 15 points, yielding a minimum sample size of 45 ears.

Results

The study included 36 patients (19 women; 52.8 per cent) with a mean age of 45.3 ± 12.0 years. The high-resolution CT scan indicated otospongiosis in both ears in 21 patients and in a single ear in 15 patients, including 7 in the right ear and 8 in the left ear. Among the 57 ears, otospongiosis was identified in the right ear in 28 cases (49.1 per cent) and in the left ear in 29 cases (50.9 per cent).

An otospongiotic focus was identified in the fissula ante fenestram in 52 ears (91.2 per cent), in the vestibule in 52 ears (91.2 per cent) and in the stapes in 4 ears (7.0 per cent). Extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum was not observed in 30 ears (52.6 per cent) and was seen in 27 ears (47.4 per cent). Extension to the basal turn, middle turn and apical turn was observed in 25 ears (43.8 per cent), 15 ears (26.3 per cent) and 2 ears (3.5 per cent), respectively.

There were no differences in air conduction or bone conduction audiograms related to the presence or absence of a focus in the fissula ante fenestram, or in contact with the endosteum of the vestible (EV), basal turn or middle turn (p > 0.05).

The diameter of the spongiotic focus was smaller than 0.7–1.3 mm in the absence of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum (p = 0.01) (Table 1). Thus, the probability of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum increased with increasing spongiotic focus diameter (Figure 2).

Fig. 2. Probability of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum according to the diameter of the otospongiotic focus (univariate logistic regression, p < 0.001).

Table 1. Diameter of otospongiotic focus according to topography of the focus

Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance, p = 0.01. Post hoc Mann–Whitney test: the diameter of otospongiotic focus without extension to the cochlear endosteum is less than the diameter of the otospongiotic focus with extension to the cochlear endosteum. IQR = interquartile range

In the presence versus absence of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum, similar four-tone average results were observed regarding air conduction thresholds (50.4 ± 14.6 dB vs 51.0 ± 15.5 dB, respectively; p = 0.87) and bone conduction thresholds (25.7 ± 9.0 dB vs 25.2 ± 8.6 dB, respectively; p = 0.81). The four-tone averages of both air and bone conduction thresholds were similar in terms of the presence or absence of spongiotic foci in the stapes (p = 0.76).

Hearing loss was comparable in ears with and without extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum (p > 0.05) (Figure 3). As shown in Figure 4, no differences were observed regarding the four-tone average of air and bone conduction thresholds or air–bone gap between these groups (p > 0.05).

Fig. 3. Air–bone gap and location of the otospongiotic focus (one-way analysis of variance: 500 Hz, p = 0.76; 1000 Hz, p = 0.58; 2000 Hz, p = 0.47; 3000 Hz, p = 0.24; 4000 Hz, p = 0.76). (Fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, n = 24; fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, and basal turn of the cochlea endosteum involvement, n = 12; fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, and basal turn of the cochlea or middle turn of the cochlea endosteum involvement, n = 12.) FAF = fissula ante fenestram; BT = basal turn of the cochlea; MT = middle turn of the cochlea

Fig. 4. Four-tone average (0.5–4 kHz) of air and bone conduction thresholds, and air–bone gap, according to the topography of the otospongiotic focus (one-way analysis of variance, p > 0.05). (Fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, n = 24; fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, and basal turn of the cochlea endosteum involvement, n = 12; fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, and basal turn of the cochlea or middle turn of the cochlea endosteum involvement, n = 12.) FAF = fissula ante fenestram; BT = basal turn of the cochlea; MT = middle turn of the cochlea

Additionally, no significant differences were observed between the groups in the analysis of air conduction and bone conduction thresholds according to the presence or absence of involvement of the otospongiotic foci in the endosteum of any pericochlear topography (basal turn, middle turn or apical turn) (Figure 5).

Fig. 5. (a) Air conduction and (b) bone conduction audiograms according to cochlear endosteum involvement (extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum (ECE)). Audiograms show comparison between patients without and with cochlear endosteum involvement (analysis of variance for repeated measures, p > 0.05).

There was no tonotopic association between the topography of the otospongiotic foci and sensory damage (p > 0.05) (Table 2).

Table 2. Tonotopic association between topography of otospongiotic focus and sensory damage

Mann–Whitney test. IQR = interquartile range

Discussion

The present study found no association between high-resolution CT findings and pure-tone audiometry measures in otospongiosis. However, a relationship was observed between the diameter of the otospongiotic focus and the presence of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum, with a greater probability of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum with an increased diameter of the otospongiotic focus.

There is a paucity of studies in the literature correlating audiometric and tomographic data in patients with otosclerosis. Such studies are heterogeneous in some respects; for example, regarding the use of different diagnostic methods, and the correlation of varying audiometric and tomographic parameters.Reference Quesnel, Moonis, Appel, O'Malley, McKenna and Curtin23Reference Karosi, Csomor and Sziklai33

Data in the literature showing a relationship between high-resolution CT and audiometric findings are conflicting. This applies to both the conductive hearing loss component and the sensory ability affected by possible damage to the cochlea.

The present study analysed retrospectively collected audiometric and tomographic data from patients with otosclerosis. Patients included in the sample had a diagnostic confirmation during surgery for stapes fixation. They also had positive signs of otosclerosis in the otospongiotic phase on high-resolution CT evaluation. The study sample included data from 36 patients (57 ears) with otospongiosis.

Studies from the twentieth century (Schuknecht,Reference Schuknecht6 in 1979; Elonka and Applebaum,Reference Elonka and Applebaum7 in 1981; Swartz et al.,Reference Swartz, Mandell, Berman, Wolfson, Marlowe and Popky14 in 1985; Maurício et al.,Reference Mauricio, Biscoito, Branco and Medina34 in 1995; and Güneri et al.,Reference Güneri, Ada, Ceryan and Güneri17 in 1996) and from the beginning of the twenty-first century (Shin et al.,Reference Shin, Fraysse, Deguine, Cognard, Charlet and Sévely18 in 2001; Kiyomizu et al.,Reference Kiyomizu, Tono, Yang and Haruta19 in 2004; Grayeli et al.,Reference Grayeli, Yrieix, Imauchi, Cyna-Gorse and Sterkers8 in 2004; Naumann et al.,Reference Naumann, Porcellini and Fisch9 in 2005; Kawase et al.,Reference Kawase, Naganawa, Sone, Ikeda and Ishigaki4 in 2006; Lagleyre et al.,Reference Lagleyre, Sorrentino, Calmels, Shin, Escudé and Deguine28 in 2009; Zhu et al.,Reference Zhu, Sha, Zhuang, Olszewski, Jiang and Xu10 in 2010; and Marx et al.,Reference Marx, Lagleyre, Escudé, Demeslay, Elhadi and Deguine21 in 2011) point to a tonotopic correlation between areas of pericochlear bone demineralisation and hearing loss in otosclerosis.

More recently, Dudau et al.Reference Dudau, Salim, Jiang and Connor35 published a retrospective review of 259 patients who underwent tomographic scanning for suspected otosclerosis. The study found no association between isolated topographic involvement by otosclerosis and audiometric data. However, when cases with multiple and simultaneous topographic involvements were analysed, especially when the endosteum and the round window were involved, some associations between audiometric and tomographic data were identified. A retrospective study by Png et al.,Reference Png, Pang, Karandikar, Goh, Yeo and Yuen22 carried out in a population without endemic otosclerosis, found no significant correlation between the densitometry of the foci on high-resolution CT and the audiometric findings of average air conduction threshold, bone conduction threshold or air–bone gap.

There is still no consensus in the literature regarding the ability of tomographic imaging to predict audiometric threshold information in otosclerosis. Although the pathophysiology of the disease in terms of hearing loss development is known, the application of this knowledge to infer the results from imaging studies remains imprecise.

Some characteristics of the present study are different from those of the studies mentioned above. Our sample included only patients with a confirmed diagnosis of the disease (confirmed intra-operatively). Furthermore, only cases in which the spongiotic phase was detected by the imaging were considered for inclusion in the sample. The study attempted to characterise the sample by considering different involved topographies, in which there was clear contact of the otospongiotic focus with the endosteum of the inner ear in the analysed pericochlear regions. The data analysis was performed under the perspective of cochlear tonotopy.

No significant associations were demonstrated for most of the audiometric and tomographic data analysed. In the present study, high-resolution CT and its findings regarding the otospongiotic phase of the disease were unable to predict a greater air–bone gap, or higher averages in air conduction or bone conduction hearing thresholds.

  • There is established knowledge regarding pathophysiology of otosclerosis in inducing hearing loss

  • However, there is no consensus regarding the relationship between high-resolution computed tomography and hearing thresholds in pure-tone audiometry

  • Imaging of otosclerosis, in otospongiotic foci cases, showed no significant correlation with air and bone conduction thresholds or air–bone gap

  • However, a greater otospongiotic focus diameter in the presence of foci extension to the cochlear endosteum was observed

  • In addition, the probability of cochlear endosteum involvement was greater with increasing otospongiotic focus diameter

A possible explanation for the absence of relevant findings in the analysed variables is that, on tomographic evaluation of otosclerosis, it is easy to detect the spongiotic phase but difficult to detect the sclerotic phase of the disease. The lesions in the sclerotic phase are usually isodense on tomographic images and only identified when they generate significant changes, remodelling the structures of the otic capsule.

Conclusion

In the sample analysed in the present study, there was no relevant association between high-resolution CT findings and pure-tone audiometric evaluation or average air–bone gap. However, we observed a greater diameter of the otospongiotic focus in the presence of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum, and an increased probability of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum with increasing diameter of the otospongiotic focus.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Hospital Iguaçu and the Center for Advanced Diagnostic Imaging (DAPI).

Competing interests

None declared

Footnotes

Dr O Zanini takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Vicente, AO, Penido, NO, Yamashita, HK, Albernaz, PLM. Computed tomography in the diagnosis of fenestral otosclerosis [in Portuguese]. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2004;70:6673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amaro, CE, Montemor, R, Nascimento, S, Ribeiro, S, Baptista, SV, Barros, E. Otosclerosis. Clinical and imaging correlation [in Portuguese]. Port J ORL 2010;48:17Google Scholar
Berrettini, S, Ravecca, F, Volterrani, D, Neri, E, Forli, F. Imaging evaluation in otosclerosis: single photon emission computed tomography and computed tomography. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2010;119:215–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawase, S, Naganawa, S, Sone, M, Ikeda, M, Ishigaki, T. Relationship between CT densitometry with a slice thickness of 0.5 mm and audiometry in otosclerosis. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1367–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wycherly, BJ, Berkowitz, F, Noone, A-M, Kim, HF. Computed tomography and otosclerosis: a practical method to correlate the sites affected to hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2010;119:789–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuknecht, HF. Cochlear otosclerosis. A continuing fantasy. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1979;222:7984CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elonka, DR, Applebaum, EL. Otosclerotic involvement of the cochlea: a histologic and audiologic study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1981;89:343–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grayeli, AB, Yrieix, CS, Imauchi, Y, Cyna-Gorse, F, Sterkers, O. Temporal bone density measurements using CT in otosclerosis. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:1136–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naumann, IC, Porcellini, B, Fisch, U. Otosclerosis: incidence of positive findings on high-resolution computed tomography and their correlation to audiological test data. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2005;114:709–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, M-M, Sha, Y, Zhuang, P-Y, Olszewski, AE, Jiang, J-Q, Xu, J-H et al. Relationship between high-resolution computed tomography densitometry and audiometry in otosclerosis. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:669–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parahy, C, Linthicum, FH Jr. Otosclerosis: relationship of spiral ligament hyalinization to sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 1983;93:717–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damsma, H, Groot, JA, Zonneveld, FW, Waes, PF, Huizing, EH. CT of cochlear otosclerosis (otospongiosis). Radiol Clin North Am 1984;22:3743CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valvassori, GE, Dobben, GD. CT densitometry of the cochlear capsule in otosclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1985;6:661–7Google ScholarPubMed
Swartz, JD, Mandell, DW, Berman, SE, Wolfson, RJ, Marlowe, FI, Popky, GL. Cochlear otosclerosis (otospongiosis): CT analysis with audiometric correlation. Radiology 1985;155:147–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Groot, JA, Huizing, EH. Densitometry of the cochlear capsule and correlation between bone density loss and bone conduction hearing loss in otosclerosis. Acta Otolaryngol 1987;103:464–8Google Scholar
Hueb, MM, Goycoolea, MV, Paparella, MM, Oliveira, JA. Otosclerosis: the University of Minnesota temporal bone collection. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;105:396405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Güneri, EA, Ada, E, Ceryan, K, Güneri, A. High-resolution computed tomographic evaluation of the cochlear capsule in otosclerosis: relationship between densitometry and sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:659–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shin, YJ, Fraysse, B, Deguine, O, Cognard, C, Charlet, JP, Sévely, A. Sensorineural hearing loss and otosclerosis: a clinical and radiologic survey of 437 cases. Acta Otolaryngol 2001;121:200–4Google ScholarPubMed
Kiyomizu, K, Tono, T, Yang, D, Haruta, A. Correlation of CT analysis and audiometry in Japanese otosclerosis. Auris Nasus Larynx 2004;31:125–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraysse, B. Why do we include CT scanning in the evaluation of otosclerosis patients? ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2010;72:168–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marx, M, Lagleyre, S, Escudé, B, Demeslay, J, Elhadi, T, Deguine, O et al. Correlations between CT scan findings and hearing thresholds in otosclerosis. Acta Otolaryngol 2011;131:351–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Png, LH, Pang, J-Y, Karandikar, A, Goh, JP, Yeo, SB, Yuen, HW. Otosclerosis in a nonendemic population: utility of CT scan and correlation with audiometry and surgical outcome. Ear Nose Throat J 2018;97:156–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quesnel, AM, Moonis, G, Appel, J, O'Malley, JT, McKenna, MJ, Curtin, HD et al. Correlation of computed tomography with histopathology in otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:22–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Declau, F, Spaendonck, MV, Timmersmans, JP, Michaels, L, Liang, J, Qiu, JP et al. Prevalence of otosclerosis in an unselected series of temporal bones. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:596602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, M, Cadge, BA, Ziff, JL, Mowat, AJ, Nash, R, Lavy, JA et al. The epidemiology of otosclerosis in a British cohort. Otol Neurotol 2019;40:2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, R, Sperling, NM, Oates, J, Jindal, M. Surgical findings and long-term hearing results in 3,050 stapedotomies for primary otosclerosis: a prospective study with the otology-neurotology database. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:S2547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Virk, JS, Singh, A, Lingam, RK. The role of imaging in the diagnosis and management of otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:e5560CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lagleyre, S, Sorrentino, T, Calmels, M-N, Shin, Y-J, Escudé, B, Deguine, O et al. Reliability of high-resolution CT scan in diagnosis of otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:1152–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfovitz, A, Luntz, M. Impact of imaging in management of otosclerosis. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2018;51:343–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaiotti, JO, Gomes, ND, Costa, AMD, Laurita, C, Villela, BC, Moreira, W et al. Tomographic diagnosis and relevant aspects of otosclerosis [in Portuguese]. Radiol Bras 2013;46:307–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vartiainen, E, Saari, T. Value of computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of cochlear otosclerosis. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1993;18:462–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Min, J-Y, Chung, W-H, Lee, WY, Cho, YS, Hong, SH, Kim, HJ et al. Otosclerosis: incidence of positive findings on temporal bone computed tomography (TBCT) and audiometric correlation in Korean patients. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:23–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karosi, T, Csomor, P, Sziklai, I. The value of HRCT in stapes fixations corresponding to hearing thresholds and histologic findings. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1300–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mauricio, JC, Biscoito, L, Branco, G, Medina, P. CT (high-resolution) in 60 cases of stapediovestibular otosclerosis with surgical indications [in Portuguese]. Acta Med Port 1995;8:335–40Google ScholarPubMed
Dudau, C, Salim, F, Jiang, D, Connor, SEJ. Diagnostic efficacy and therapeutic impact of computed tomography in the evaluation of clinically suspected otosclerosis. Eur Radiol 2017;27:1195–201CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Tomographic images showing: (a) otospongiotic focus affecting the fissula ante fenestram; (b) contact of the otospongiotic focus with the endosteum of the vestibule; (c) contact of the otospongiotic focus with the endosteum of the basal turn of the cochlea; (d) contact of the otospongiotic focus with the endosteum of the middle turn of the cochlea; (e) contact of the otospongiotic focus with the endosteum of the apical turn of the cochlea; and (f) measurement of the largest diameter of the otospongiotic focus (line). Arrows indicate otospongiotic focus.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Probability of extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum according to the diameter of the otospongiotic focus (univariate logistic regression, p < 0.001).

Figure 2

Table 1. Diameter of otospongiotic focus according to topography of the focus

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Air–bone gap and location of the otospongiotic focus (one-way analysis of variance: 500 Hz, p = 0.76; 1000 Hz, p = 0.58; 2000 Hz, p = 0.47; 3000 Hz, p = 0.24; 4000 Hz, p = 0.76). (Fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, n = 24; fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, and basal turn of the cochlea endosteum involvement, n = 12; fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, and basal turn of the cochlea or middle turn of the cochlea endosteum involvement, n = 12.) FAF = fissula ante fenestram; BT = basal turn of the cochlea; MT = middle turn of the cochlea

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Four-tone average (0.5–4 kHz) of air and bone conduction thresholds, and air–bone gap, according to the topography of the otospongiotic focus (one-way analysis of variance, p > 0.05). (Fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, n = 24; fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, and basal turn of the cochlea endosteum involvement, n = 12; fissula ante fenestram or cochlear vestibule, and basal turn of the cochlea or middle turn of the cochlea endosteum involvement, n = 12.) FAF = fissula ante fenestram; BT = basal turn of the cochlea; MT = middle turn of the cochlea

Figure 5

Fig. 5. (a) Air conduction and (b) bone conduction audiograms according to cochlear endosteum involvement (extension of the otospongiotic foci to the cochlear endosteum (ECE)). Audiograms show comparison between patients without and with cochlear endosteum involvement (analysis of variance for repeated measures, p > 0.05).

Figure 6

Table 2. Tonotopic association between topography of otospongiotic focus and sensory damage