G Jakob Lexow1, Marcel Kluge2, Nils-Claudius Gellrich3, Thomas Lenarz2, Omid Majdani2, Thomas S Rau2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology and Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all" EXC 1077/1, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hanover, Germany. lexow.jakob@mh-hannover.de. 2. Department of Otolaryngology and Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all" EXC 1077/1, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hanover, Germany. 3. Department of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hanover, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient specific selection of cochlear implants would benefit from pre-operative knowledge of cochlear length. Several methods for its measurement or estimation have been described in literature. This study focused on the achievable accuracy in clinically available imaging. METHODS: Five simplified cochlea models milled into porcine bone were scanned in water using clinical cone beam computed tomography. Due to their well-known dimensions these phantoms served as gold standard for the length measurements. Each phantom was measured ten times using the custom software Comet. In addition, cochleae in ten image datasets taken indiscriminately from clinical routine were measured ten times each to test the precision under realistic conditions. The results were also compared to estimations based on the diameter of the basal turn (A value) as described in literature. RESULTS: Measurement accuracy of the phantoms' lengths was high (average error: - 0.2 mm; standard deviation: 0.3 mm). The pooled standard deviation for the measurements in clinical datasets was 0.6 mm. Errors resulted mainly from problems locating the helicotrema. The estimations differed on average - 1.7 to + 0.4 mm from the manual measurements and had standard deviations between 0.5 and 0.6 mm depending on the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The program Comet was successfully used to accurately measure the length of the cochlea models in clinically available imaging. The lower image quality of patient scans reduced the precision of the measurement. Estimations using the A value are a quicker alternative for averagely sized cochleae in cases where the lack of accuracy is tolerable.
PURPOSE:Patient specific selection of cochlear implants would benefit from pre-operative knowledge of cochlear length. Several methods for its measurement or estimation have been described in literature. This study focused on the achievable accuracy in clinically available imaging. METHODS: Five simplified cochlea models milled into porcine bone were scanned in water using clinical cone beam computed tomography. Due to their well-known dimensions these phantoms served as gold standard for the length measurements. Each phantom was measured ten times using the custom software Comet. In addition, cochleae in ten image datasets taken indiscriminately from clinical routine were measured ten times each to test the precision under realistic conditions. The results were also compared to estimations based on the diameter of the basal turn (A value) as described in literature. RESULTS: Measurement accuracy of the phantoms' lengths was high (average error: - 0.2 mm; standard deviation: 0.3 mm). The pooled standard deviation for the measurements in clinical datasets was 0.6 mm. Errors resulted mainly from problems locating the helicotrema. The estimations differed on average - 1.7 to + 0.4 mm from the manual measurements and had standard deviations between 0.5 and 0.6 mm depending on the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The program Comet was successfully used to accurately measure the length of the cochlea models in clinically available imaging. The lower image quality of patient scans reduced the precision of the measurement. Estimations using the A value are a quicker alternative for averagely sized cochleae in cases where the lack of accuracy is tolerable.
Authors: G Jakob Lexow; Daniel Schurzig; Nils-Claudius Gellrich; Thomas Lenarz; Omid Majdani; Thomas S Rau Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 2.924
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: James D A Johnston; Daniel Scoffings; Mark Chung; David Baguley; Neil P Donnelly; Patrick R Axon; Roger F Gray; James R Tysome Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Johannes Taeger; Franz Tassilo Müller-Graff; Lukas Ilgen; Phillip Schendzielorz; Rudolf Hagen; Tilman Neun; Kristen Rak Journal: OTO Open Date: 2021-09-24
Authors: Daniel Schurzig; Max Eike Timm; Cornelia Batsoulis; Rolf Salcher; Daniel Sieber; Claude Jolly; Thomas Lenarz; Masoud Zoka-Assadi Journal: OTO Open Date: 2018-10-02