Almir Salkic1, Erdem Yildiz2, Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner2, Lejla Tokic1, Sabrina Uscuplic1, Senada Sarihodzic3, Fuad Brkic1, Alen Harcinovic1, David T Liu2, Faris F Brkic4. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Clinical Center Tuzla, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Radiology, University Clinical Center Tuzla, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. faris.brkic@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the proposed cochlear duct length estimation based on the cochlear 'A value'. Furthermore, we assessed the interobserver variability between radiology and otolaryngology attending physicians and otolaryngology trainees. METHODS: Thirteen pediatric cochlear implant candidates were retrospectively analyzed by three otolaryngology physicians (attending physician, second year, and fourth year trainees) and a radiology attending. The cochlear duct length was calculated based on the formula of Grover et al. The differences in acquired measurements between observers were compared using the Wilcoxon matched signed-rank test. RESULTS: The differences in measurements between the attending otolaryngologist and radiologist were not statistically different, while several significant differences were observed with regard to measurements of attending doctors compared to both residents. In particular, a significant difference between the second year otolaryngology resident and otolaryngology and radiology attending was observed for one side (right ear p = 0.034 and p = 0.012, respectively). Moreover, the fourth year resident calculated significantly different cochlear duct measurements when compared to the attending otolaryngologist (left ear p = 0.014) and radiologist (right ear p = 0.047). Interestingly, differently experienced otolaryngology residents provided significantly different measurements for both ears. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, cochlear duct length measurement according to the proposed method may be a reliable and cost-effective method. Indeed, otolaryngology training may be sufficient to provide measurements comparable to radiologists. On the other hand, additional efforts should be invested during otolaryngology training in terms of the evaluation of radiological imaging which may increase the capabilities of otolaryngology residents in this regard.
PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the proposed cochlear duct length estimation based on the cochlear 'A value'. Furthermore, we assessed the interobserver variability between radiology and otolaryngology attending physicians and otolaryngology trainees. METHODS: Thirteen pediatric cochlear implant candidates were retrospectively analyzed by three otolaryngology physicians (attending physician, second year, and fourth year trainees) and a radiology attending. The cochlear duct length was calculated based on the formula of Grover et al. The differences in acquired measurements between observers were compared using the Wilcoxon matched signed-rank test. RESULTS: The differences in measurements between the attending otolaryngologist and radiologist were not statistically different, while several significant differences were observed with regard to measurements of attending doctors compared to both residents. In particular, a significant difference between the second year otolaryngology resident and otolaryngology and radiology attending was observed for one side (right ear p = 0.034 and p = 0.012, respectively). Moreover, the fourth year resident calculated significantly different cochlear duct measurements when compared to the attending otolaryngologist (left ear p = 0.014) and radiologist (right ear p = 0.047). Interestingly, differently experienced otolaryngology residents provided significantly different measurements for both ears. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, cochlear duct length measurement according to the proposed method may be a reliable and cost-effective method. Indeed, otolaryngology training may be sufficient to provide measurements comparable to radiologists. On the other hand, additional efforts should be invested during otolaryngology training in terms of the evaluation of radiological imaging which may increase the capabilities of otolaryngology residents in this regard.
Authors: Ingeborg Hochmair; Wolfgang Arnold; Peter Nopp; Claude Jolly; Joachim Müller; Peter Roland Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 1.494