Nora M Weiss1, Soenke Langner2, Robert Mlynski1, Peter Roland3, Anandhan Dhanasingh4. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, "Otto Koerner", Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany. 2. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric and Neuroradiology, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Neurological Surgery, University of Texas; Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. 4. MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the common cavity (CC) with the normal anatomy inner ear in order to evaluate whether the cavity is representing both the cochlear and the vestibular parts of the inner ear and to revisit CC deformity from a three-dimensional (3D) perspective. METHODS: High-resolution computed tomography image datasets of 17 temporal bones initially identified as CC were evaluated with 3D reconstruction and multiplanar image analysis using a free available software for 3D segmentation of the inner ear. All 3D images of CC were compared to a normal inner ear. Maximum and minimum diameter of the CC were correlated with the circumference of the CC in an axial plane. RESULTS: In 13 cases (76%), CC represented only the vestibular part of the inner ear and did not represent CC as defined here and by Sennaroglu, Kontorinis, and Khan. True CC was correctly diagnosed in only one case (6%). In three cases (18%), a rudimentary part of the cochlear portion could be identified. The axes' length of the elliptical cavity showed a strong positive linear relation to the circumference of the cavity (long axis: r = 0.94; P < .0001; short axis: r = 0.68; P = .0029). CONCLUSION: This study supports the assumption that many reported CC cases only represent the vestibular part of the inner ear and are therefore cases of cochlear aplasia. 3D segmentation and systematic analysis of CT-imaging add clinical value to the comprehension of the morphology of the anatomical structures of the inner ear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C Laryngoscope, 131:386-391, 2021.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the common cavity (CC) with the normal anatomy inner ear in order to evaluate whether the cavity is representing both the cochlear and the vestibular parts of the inner ear and to revisit CC deformity from a three-dimensional (3D) perspective. METHODS: High-resolution computed tomography image datasets of 17 temporal bones initially identified as CC were evaluated with 3D reconstruction and multiplanar image analysis using a free available software for 3D segmentation of the inner ear. All 3D images of CC were compared to a normal inner ear. Maximum and minimum diameter of the CC were correlated with the circumference of the CC in an axial plane. RESULTS: In 13 cases (76%), CC represented only the vestibular part of the inner ear and did not represent CC as defined here and by Sennaroglu, Kontorinis, and Khan. True CC was correctly diagnosed in only one case (6%). In three cases (18%), a rudimentary part of the cochlear portion could be identified. The axes' length of the elliptical cavity showed a strong positive linear relation to the circumference of the cavity (long axis: r = 0.94; P < .0001; short axis: r = 0.68; P = .0029). CONCLUSION: This study supports the assumption that many reported CC cases only represent the vestibular part of the inner ear and are therefore cases of cochlear aplasia. 3D segmentation and systematic analysis of CT-imaging add clinical value to the comprehension of the morphology of the anatomical structures of the inner ear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C Laryngoscope, 131:386-391, 2021.
Authors: Nora M Weiss; Tabita M Breitsprecher; Alexander Pscheidl; David Bächinger; Stefan Volkenstein; Stefan Dazert; Robert Mlynski; Sönke Langner; Peter Roland; Anandhan Dhanasingh Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-10-10 Impact factor: 3.236
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: Anandhan Dhanasingh; Daniel Erpenbeck; Masoud Zoka Assadi; Úna Doyle; Peter Roland; Abdulrahman Hagr; Vincent Van Rompaey; Paul Van de Heyning Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 4.379