Measuring 3D Cochlear Duct Length on MRI: Is It Accurate and Reliable?

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Roth TN,
   2. Hanebuth D,
   3. Probst R

   . Prevalence of age-related hearing loss in Europe: a review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:1101–07 doi:10.1007/s00405-011-1597-8 pmid:21499871

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Roche JP,
   2. Hansen MR

   . On the horizon: cochlear implant technology. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2015;48:1097–116 doi:10.1016/j.otc.2015.07.009 pmid:26443490

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Atalay B,
   2. Eser MB,
   3. Kalcioglu MT, et al

   . Comprehensive analysis of factors affecting cochlear size: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Laryngoscope 2021 Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1002/lary.29532 pmid:33764541

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Koch RW,
   2. Ladak HM,
   3. Elfarnawany M, et al

   . Measuring cochlear duct length: a historical analysis of methods and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;46:1–11 doi:10.1186/s40463-017-0194-2 pmid:28270200

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Mistrík P,
   2. Jolly C

   . Optimal electrode length to match patient specific cochlear anatomy. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2016;133(Suppl 1):S68–71 doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2016.05.001 pmid:27246743

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Kjer HM,
   2. Fagertun J,
   3. Wimmer W, et al

   . Patient-specific estimation of detailed cochlear shape from clinical CT images. Int J Comput Assist Radiology Surg 2018;13:389–96 doi:10.1007/s11548-017-1701-7 pmid:29305790

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Timm ME,
   2. Majdani O,
   3. Weller T, et al

   . Patient specific selection of lateral wall cochlear implant electrodes based on anatomical indication ranges. PLoS One 2018;13:e0206435 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0206435 pmid:30365565

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Schurzig D,
   2. Timm ME,
   3. Batsoulis C, et al

   . A novel method for clinical cochlear duct length estimation toward patient-specific cochlear implant selection. OTO Open 2018;2:2473974X1880023 doi:10.1177/2473974X18800238 pmid:30719505

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Eser MB,
   2. Atalay B,
   3. Kalcıoğlu MT

   . Comment on “The Effect of Cochlear Size on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes.” Biomed Res Int 2020;2020:5674547 doi:10.1155/2020/5674547 pmid:32802858

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Helal RA,
    2. Jacob R,
    3. Elshinnawy MA, et al

    . Cone-beam CT versus multidetector CT in postoperative cochlear implant imaging: evaluation of image quality and radiation dose. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:362–67 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6894 pmid:33414229

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Bossuyt PM,
    2. Reitsma JB,
    3. Bruns DE, et al

    . STARD Group. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 2015;277:826–69 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151516 pmid:26509226

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Eser MB,
    2. Atalay B,
    3. Kalcıoğlu MT

    . Is cochlear length related to congenital sensorineural hearing loss: preliminary data. J Int Adv Otol 2021;17:1–8 doi:10.5152/iao.2020.7863 pmid:32147598

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Koo TK,
    2. Li MY

    . A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155–63 doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 pmid:27330520

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Connor SE,
    2. Bell DJ,
    3. O’Gorman R, et al

    . CT and MR imaging cochlear distance measurements may predict cochlear implant length required for a 360° insertion. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1425–30 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1571 pmid:19386728

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Sobrinho FP,
    2. Lazarini PR,
    3. Yoo HJ, et al

    . A method for measuring the length of the cochlea through magnetic resonance imaging. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2009;75:261–67 doi:10.1016/S1808-8694(15)30788-6 pmid:19575114

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Schurzig D,
    2. Timm ME,
    3. Lexow GJ, et al

    . Cochlear helix and duct length identification: evaluation of different curve fitting techniques. Cochlear Implants Int 2018;19:268–83 doi:10.1080/14670100.2018.1460025 pmid:29631499

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Widmann G,
    2. Dejaco D,
    3. Luger A, et al

    . Pre- and post-operative imaging of cochlear implants: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2020;11:93 doi:10.1186/s13244-020-00902-6 pmid:32803542

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Verbist BM,
    2. Frijns JH,
    3. Geleijns J, et al

    . Multisection CT as a valuable tool in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implant patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:424–29 pmid:15709150

    PubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Erixon E,
    2. Rask-Andersen H

    . How to predict cochlear length before cochlear implantation surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2013;133:1258–65 doi:10.3109/00016489.2013.831475 pmid:24053486

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Dhanasingh A

    . Cochlear duct length along the outer wall vs organ of corti: which one is relevant for the electrode array length selection and frequency mapping using Greenwood function? World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;5:117–21 doi:10.1016/j.wjorl.2018.09.004 pmid:31334491

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Heutink F,
    2. Koch V,
    3. Verbist B, et al

    . Multi-scale deep learning framework for cochlea localization, segmentation and analysis on clinical ultra-high-resolution CT images. Computer Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2020;191:105387 doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105387 pmid:32109685

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Lu A,
    2. Gorny KR,
    3. Ho ML

    . Zero TE MRI for craniofacial bone imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:1562–66 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6175 pmid:31467238

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    1. Delso G,
    2. Wiesinger F,
    3. Sacolick LI, et al

    . Clinical evaluation of zero-echo-time MR imaging for the segmentation of the skull. J Nucl Med 2015;56:417–22 doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.149997 pmid:25678489

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Byun JS,
    2. Kim HJ,
    3. Yim YJ, et al

    . MR imaging of the internal auditory canal and inner ear at 3T: comparison between 3D driven equilibrium and 3D balanced fast field echo sequences. Korean J Radiology 2008;9:212–18 doi:10.3348/kjr.2008.9.3.212 pmid:18525223

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Naganawa S,
    2. Koshikawa T,
    3. Fukatsu H, et al

    . MR cisternography of the cerebellopontine angle: comparison of three-dimensional fast asymmetrical spin-echo and three-dimensional constructive interference in the steady-state sequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1179–85 pmid:11415916

    PubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Jung NY,
    2. Moon WJ,
    3. Lee MH, et al

    . Magnetic resonance cisternography: comparison between 3-dimensional driven equilibrium with sensitivity encoding and 3-dimensional balanced fast-field echo sequences with sensitivity encoding. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:588–91 doi:10.1097/rct.0b013e31809861fb pmid:17882037

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Schmalbrock P

    . Comparison of three-dimensional fast spin echo and gradient echo sequences for high-resolution temporal bone imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:814–25 pmid:11105019

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Benson JC,
    2. Carlson ML,
    3. Lane JI

    . MRI of the internal auditory canal, labyrinth, and middle ear: how we do it. Radiology 2020;297:252–65 doi:10.1148/radiol.2020201767 pmid:32960730

    CrossRefPubMed