OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine the ability of preoperative computed tomography (CT) to predict facial nerve stimulation (FNS) after cochlear implantation (CI). 2) To recognize the limitations of CT in predicting FNS. STUDY DESIGN: Patient control study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Adult patients with CI from 2003 to 2015. METHODS: Patients with severe FNS (n = 4) were compared with randomly selected CI patients (n = 28). Three blinded reviewers evaluated preoperative temporal bone CT scans to measure the distance from the labyrinthine segment of the facial nerve to the basal turn of the cochlea and attempted to predict whether or not the subject had FNS after CI. RESULTS: In total, 32 CT scans were evaluated representing 49 ears that underwent CI.The distances (mm) measured from the labyrinthine segment of the facial nerve to the basal turn of the cochlea in both the axial (0.3 ± 0.3 versus 0.6 ± 0.3) and coronal (0.4 ± 0.2 versus 0.6 ± 0.2) orientation were significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0034) respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated good (K > 0.7) reviewer correlation in both the reviewers' measurements and predictions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for preoperative CT scans to predict FNS were 38.5, 85.1, 19.2, and 93.8% respectively. The reviewers were 23% accurate in predicting FNS. CONCLUSION: Based on a blinded retrospective patient-control study, CT scan measurements show a significantly reduced distance between the labyrinthine facial nerve and the basal turn of the cochlea in patients with FNS. However, it is difficult to predict who will have FNS based on these measurements.
OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine the ability of preoperative computed tomography (CT) to predict facial nerve stimulation (FNS) after cochlear implantation (CI). 2) To recognize the limitations of CT in predicting FNS. STUDY DESIGN:Patient control study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Adult patients with CI from 2003 to 2015. METHODS:Patients with severe FNS (n = 4) were compared with randomly selected CI patients (n = 28). Three blinded reviewers evaluated preoperative temporal bone CT scans to measure the distance from the labyrinthine segment of the facial nerve to the basal turn of the cochlea and attempted to predict whether or not the subject had FNS after CI. RESULTS: In total, 32 CT scans were evaluated representing 49 ears that underwent CI.The distances (mm) measured from the labyrinthine segment of the facial nerve to the basal turn of the cochlea in both the axial (0.3 ± 0.3 versus 0.6 ± 0.3) and coronal (0.4 ± 0.2 versus 0.6 ± 0.2) orientation were significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0034) respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated good (K > 0.7) reviewer correlation in both the reviewers' measurements and predictions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for preoperative CT scans to predict FNS were 38.5, 85.1, 19.2, and 93.8% respectively. The reviewers were 23% accurate in predicting FNS. CONCLUSION: Based on a blinded retrospective patient-control study, CT scan measurements show a significantly reduced distance between the labyrinthine facial nerve and the basal turn of the cochlea in patients with FNS. However, it is difficult to predict who will have FNS based on these measurements.
Authors: Maroun T Semaan; Neal C Gehani; Neelima Tummala; Carolyn Coughlan; Souha A Fares; Daniel P Hsu; Gail S Murray; William H Lippy; Cliff A Megerian Journal: Am J Otolaryngol Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 1.808
Authors: Liselotte J C Rotteveel; David W Proops; Richard T Ramsden; Shakeel R Saeed; Adriaan F van Olphen; Emmanuel A M Mylanus Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Jonathan L Hatch; Heather Schopper; Isabel M Boersma; Habib G Rizk; Shaun A Nguyen; Paul R Lambert; Theodore R McRackan; Ted A Meyer Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: David P Herrmann; Franz-Tassilo Müller-Graff; Stefan Kaulitz; Mario Cebulla; Anja Kurz; Rudolf Hagen; Tilmann Neun; Kristen Rak Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Iris Burck; Rania A Helal; Nagy N N Naguib; Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Simon Martin; Martin Leinung; Silke Helbig; Timo Stöver; Annette Lehn; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 5.315