Comparison of EST 360 vs CALC 360 for Xu et al9 and Marsh et al17 methods (mean difference [SD], range, and Pearson linear correlation coefficient)
| Xu et al9 | Marsh et al17 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean difference (SD) (and range): CALC 360 − EST 360 | Pearson r | Mean difference (SD) (and range): CALC 360 − EST 360 | Pearson r | |
| CT | ||||
| A | −0.79 (0.84) mm (−0.54–2.4) | 0.67 | −1.49 (1.04) mm (−1.6–2.9) | 0.62 |
| B | −1.36 (0.90) mm (−0.43–2.9) | 0.49 | −2.05 (1.13) mm (−1.6–3.7) | 0.47 |
| A+B | −1.06 (0.84) mm (−0.80–2.2) | 0.61 | −1.75 (1.09) mm (−1.6–3.2) | 0.53 |
| MR Imaging | ||||
| A | −0.76 (0.81) mm (−0.70–2.3) | 0.75 | −1.45 (1.15) mm (−1.9–3.1) | 0.57 |
| B | −1.30 (1.05) mm (−0.70–3.4) | 0.52 | −1.98 (1.29) mm (−1.9–3.7) | 0.43 |
| A+B | −1.0 (0.87) mm (−0.70–2.9) | 0.67 | −1.72 (1.17) mm (−1.9–3.4) | 0.52 |
Note:—EST 360 indicates an estimate of the insertion depth to the 360° point based on the cochlear distance measured; CALC 360, calculation of the length of the array extending through 1 complete turn to the 360° point on postoperative CT.