OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine the reliability of a new tablet-based software that utilizes postoperative computed tomography to determine angular insertion depth (AID), cochlear duct length (CDL), and the cochlear place frequency of individual electrodes in cochlear implant recipients. PATIENTS: Twenty adult cochlear implant recipients with lateral-wall electrode arrays of varying lengths were included in the study. INTERVENTION: Cochlear and electrode array measurements were made by 2 otolaryngologists using a tablet-based software. The user manually identifies the modiolus, round window, and each electrode contact to calculate AID. The user also manually identifies cochlear landmarks to calculate the CDL. The AID and CDL are applied to the Greenwood function to obtain an estimate of the cochlear place frequency for each electrode. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome measure was the reliability of the instrument, as assessed with intra and interrater reliability of measured AID and CDL. The resultant differences in the estimated cochlear place frequency of the most apical electrode were also evaluated. RESULTS: A broad range of AIDs were observed (390°-659°). Intraclass correlation coefficients for intra (0.991) and interrater reliability (0.980) of AID of the most apical electrode contact were excellent. Intra (0.820) and interrater reliability (0.784) of CDL were also excellent. The estimated cochlear place frequency for the most apical electrode differed by an average of 6.7% (0-18.7%) across the 2 raters. CONCLUSION: There is excellent agreement amongst clinicians in the determination of AID and CDL, resulting in small changes in estimated cochlear place frequency of the most apical electrode using this new software.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine the reliability of a new tablet-based software that utilizes postoperative computed tomography to determine angular insertion depth (AID), cochlear duct length (CDL), and the cochlear place frequency of individual electrodes in cochlear implant recipients. PATIENTS: Twenty adult cochlear implant recipients with lateral-wall electrode arrays of varying lengths were included in the study. INTERVENTION: Cochlear and electrode array measurements were made by 2 otolaryngologists using a tablet-based software. The user manually identifies the modiolus, round window, and each electrode contact to calculate AID. The user also manually identifies cochlear landmarks to calculate the CDL. The AID and CDL are applied to the Greenwood function to obtain an estimate of the cochlear place frequency for each electrode. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome measure was the reliability of the instrument, as assessed with intra and interrater reliability of measured AID and CDL. The resultant differences in the estimated cochlear place frequency of the most apical electrode were also evaluated. RESULTS: A broad range of AIDs were observed (390°-659°). Intraclass correlation coefficients for intra (0.991) and interrater reliability (0.980) of AID of the most apical electrode contact were excellent. Intra (0.820) and interrater reliability (0.784) of CDL were also excellent. The estimated cochlear place frequency for the most apical electrode differed by an average of 6.7% (0-18.7%) across the 2 raters. CONCLUSION: There is excellent agreement amongst clinicians in the determination of AID and CDL, resulting in small changes in estimated cochlear place frequency of the most apical electrode using this new software.
Authors: Ingeborg Hochmair; Wolfgang Arnold; Peter Nopp; Claude Jolly; Joachim Müller; Peter Roland Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Katrien Vermeire; Andrea Nobbe; Peter Schleich; Peter Nopp; Maurits H Voormolen; Paul H Van de Heyning Journal: Hear Res Date: 2008-09-12 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: Theodore A Schuman; Jack H Noble; Charles G Wright; George B Wanna; Benoit Dawant; Robert F Labadie Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.325
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: Griet Mertens; Paul Van de Heyning; Olivier Vanderveken; Vedat Topsakal; Vincent Van Rompaey Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Margaret T Dillon; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger; Brendan P O'Connell Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Emily S Hollis; Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Andrea L Bucker; Sarah A Dillon; Allison Young; Kristen Quinones; Harold C Pillsbury; Matthew M Dedmon; Brendan P O'Connell; Kevin D Brown Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 2.619
Authors: Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Matthew M Dedmon; Brendan P O'Connell Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 5.591
Authors: Tabita Breitsprecher; Anandhan Dhanasingh; Marko Schulze; Markus Kipp; Rami Abu Dakah; Tobias Oberhoffner; Michael Dau; Bernhard Frerich; Marc-André Weber; Soenke Langner; Robert Mlynski; Nora M Weiss Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Craig A Buchman; Emily Buss; Brendan P O'Connell; Meredith A Rooth; English R King; Harold C Pillsbury; Oliver F Adunka; Kevin D Brown Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Christopher K Giardina; Michael W Canfarotta; Nicholas J Thompson; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Sarah E Hodge; Jenna Baker; Brendan P O'Connell Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 2.619