BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postoperative imaging of cochlear implants (CIs) needs to provide detailed information on localization of the electrode array. We evaluated visualization of a HiFocus1J array and accuracy of measurements of electrode positions for acquisitions with 64-section CT scanners of 4 major CT systems (Toshiba Aquilion-64, Philips Brilliance-64, GE LightSpeed-64, and Siemens Sensation-64). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An implanted human cadaver temporal bone, a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom containing a CI, and a point spread function (PSF) phantom were scanned. In the human cadaver temporal bone, the visibility of cochlear structures and electrode array were assessed by using a visual analog scale (VAS). Statistical analysis was performed with a paired 2-tailed Student t test with significant level set to .008 after Bonferroni correction. Distinction of individual electrode contacts was quantitatively evaluated. Quantitative assessment of electrode contact positions was achieved with the PMMA phantom by measurement of the displacement. In addition, PSF was measured to evaluate spatial resolution performance of the CT scanners. RESULTS: VAS scores were significantly lower for Brilliance-64 and LightSpeed-64 compared with Aquilion-64 and Sensation-64. Displacement of electrode contacts ranged from 0.05 to 0.14 mm on Aquilion-64, 0.07 to 0.16 mm on Brilliance-64, 0.07 to 0.61 mm on LightSpeed-64, and 0.03 to 0.13 mm on Sensation-64. PSF measurements show an in-plane and longitudinal resolution varying from 0.48 to 0.68 mm and 0.70 to 0.98 mm, respectively, over the 4 scanners. CONCLUSION: According to PSF results, electrode contacts of the studied CI can be visualized separately on all of the studied scanners unless curvature causes intercontact spacing narrowing. Assessment of visibility of CI and electrode contact positions, however, varies between scanners.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postoperative imaging of cochlear implants (CIs) needs to provide detailed information on localization of the electrode array. We evaluated visualization of a HiFocus1J array and accuracy of measurements of electrode positions for acquisitions with 64-section CT scanners of 4 major CT systems (Toshiba Aquilion-64, Philips Brilliance-64, GE LightSpeed-64, and Siemens Sensation-64). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An implanted human cadaver temporal bone, a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom containing a CI, and a point spread function (PSF) phantom were scanned. In the human cadaver temporal bone, the visibility of cochlear structures and electrode array were assessed by using a visual analog scale (VAS). Statistical analysis was performed with a paired 2-tailed Student t test with significant level set to .008 after Bonferroni correction. Distinction of individual electrode contacts was quantitatively evaluated. Quantitative assessment of electrode contact positions was achieved with the PMMA phantom by measurement of the displacement. In addition, PSF was measured to evaluate spatial resolution performance of the CT scanners. RESULTS: VAS scores were significantly lower for Brilliance-64 and LightSpeed-64 compared with Aquilion-64 and Sensation-64. Displacement of electrode contacts ranged from 0.05 to 0.14 mm on Aquilion-64, 0.07 to 0.16 mm on Brilliance-64, 0.07 to 0.61 mm on LightSpeed-64, and 0.03 to 0.13 mm on Sensation-64. PSF measurements show an in-plane and longitudinal resolution varying from 0.48 to 0.68 mm and 0.70 to 0.98 mm, respectively, over the 4 scanners. CONCLUSION: According to PSF results, electrode contacts of the studied CI can be visualized separately on all of the studied scanners unless curvature causes intercontact spacing narrowing. Assessment of visibility of CI and electrode contact positions, however, varies between scanners.
Authors: Hartmut W Husstedt; Antje Aschendorff; Bernhard Richter; Roland Laszig; Martin Schumacher Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Federico Cesarini; Monica Gallizioli; Paolo Solero; Marco Rolando; Maria Carla Cassinis; Giovanni Gandini Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Berit M Verbist; Margaret W Skinner; Lawrence T Cohen; Patricia A Leake; Chris James; Colette Boëx; Timothy A Holden; Charles C Finley; Peter S Roland; J Thomas Roland; Matt Haller; Jim F Patrick; Claude N Jolly; Mike A Faltys; Jeroen J Briaire; Johan H M Frijns Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: R A Helal; R Jacob; M A Elshinnawy; A I Othman; I M Al-Dhamari; D W Paulus; T T Abdelaziz Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey; Johan H M Frijns; Patrick R Axon; Randy K Kalkman; Patrick Boyle; David M Baguley; John Briggs; John M Deeks; Jeroen J Briaire; Xavier Barreau; René Dauman Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2010-06-05
Authors: Diane S Lazard; Christophe Vincent; Frédéric Venail; Paul Van de Heyning; Eric Truy; Olivier Sterkers; Piotr H Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski; Karen Schauwers; Stephen O'Leary; Deborah Mawman; Bert Maat; Andrea Kleine-Punte; Alexander M Huber; Kevin Green; Paul J Govaerts; Bernard Fraysse; Richard Dowell; Norbert Dillier; Elaine Burke; Andy Beynon; François Bergeron; Deniz Başkent; Françoise Artières; Peter J Blamey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240