HYPOTHESIS: Cochlear duct length (CDL) can be automatically measured for custom selection of cochlear implant (CI) electrode arrays. BACKGROUND: CI electrode array selection can be influenced by measuring the CDL, which is estimated based on the length of the line that connects the round window and the lateral wall of the cochlea when passing through the modiolus. CDL measurement remains time consuming and inter-observer variability has not been studied. METHODS: We evaluate an automatic approach to directly measure the two-turn (2T) CDL using existing algorithms for localizing cochlear anatomy in computed tomography (CT). Pre-op CT images of 309 ears were evaluated. Two fellowship-trained neurotologists manually and independently measured CDL. Inter-observer variability between measurements across expert and automatic observers is assessed. Inter-observer differences for choice of electrode type are also investigated. RESULTS: Manual measurement of CDL by experts tends to underestimate cochlea size and has high inter-observer variability, with mean absolute differences between expert CDL estimations of 1.15 mm. Our results show that this can lead to a large number of cochleae for which a different electrode array type would be selected by different observers, depending on the specific threshold value of CDL used to decide between array type. CONCLUSION: Choosing the best CI electrode array is an important task for optimizing hearing outcomes. Manual cochleae length measurements are user-dependent, and errors impact upon the CI electrode array choice for certain patients. Measuring cochlea length automatically is less time consuming and generates more repeatable results. Our automatic approach could make use of CDL for patient-customized treatment more clinically adoptable.
HYPOTHESIS: Cochlear duct length (CDL) can be automatically measured for custom selection of cochlear implant (CI) electrode arrays. BACKGROUND: CI electrode array selection can be influenced by measuring the CDL, which is estimated based on the length of the line that connects the round window and the lateral wall of the cochlea when passing through the modiolus. CDL measurement remains time consuming and inter-observer variability has not been studied. METHODS: We evaluate an automatic approach to directly measure the two-turn (2T) CDL using existing algorithms for localizing cochlear anatomy in computed tomography (CT). Pre-op CT images of 309 ears were evaluated. Two fellowship-trained neurotologists manually and independently measured CDL. Inter-observer variability between measurements across expert and automatic observers is assessed. Inter-observer differences for choice of electrode type are also investigated. RESULTS: Manual measurement of CDL by experts tends to underestimate cochlea size and has high inter-observer variability, with mean absolute differences between expert CDL estimations of 1.15 mm. Our results show that this can lead to a large number of cochleae for which a different electrode array type would be selected by different observers, depending on the specific threshold value of CDL used to decide between array type. CONCLUSION: Choosing the best CI electrode array is an important task for optimizing hearing outcomes. Manual cochleae length measurements are user-dependent, and errors impact upon the CI electrode array choice for certain patients. Measuring cochlea length automatically is less time consuming and generates more repeatable results. Our automatic approach could make use of CDL for patient-customized treatment more clinically adoptable.
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: Margaret W Skinner; Darlene R Ketten; Laura K Holden; Gary W Harding; Peter G Smith; George A Gates; J Gail Neely; G Robert Kletzker; Barry Brunsden; Barbara Blocker Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2002-02-27
Authors: Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Emily Buss; Harold C Pillsbury; Kevin D Brown; Brendan P O'Connell Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: G Jakob Lexow; Marcel Kluge; Nils-Claudius Gellrich; Thomas Lenarz; Omid Majdani; Thomas S Rau Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Srijata Chakravorti; Jack H Noble; René H Gifford; Benoit M Dawant; Brendan P O'Connell; Jianing Wang; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Yubo Fan; Rueben A Banalagay; Nathan D Cass; Jack H Noble; Kareem O Tawfik; Robert F Labadie; Benoit M Dawant Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2021-11
Authors: Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Matthew M Dedmon; Brendan P O'Connell Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: William G Morrel; Jourdan T Holder; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 3.497