Pre- and Postoperative Imaging of Cochlear Implantation in Cadaveric Specimens Using Low-Dose Photon-Counting Detector CT

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Suhling MC,
   2. Majdani O,
   3. Salcher R, et al

   . The impact of electrode array length on hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1006–15 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001110 pmid:27309713

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Escudé B,
   2. James C,
   3. Deguine O, et al

   . The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurotol 2006;11 Suppl 1:27–33 doi:10.1159/000095611

   CrossRef
3. 3.↵
   1. O’Connell BP,
   2. Cakir A,
   3. Hunter JB, et al

   . Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1016–23 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001125

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Büchner A,
   2. Illg A,
   3. Majdani O, et al

   . Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis. PLoS One 2017;12:e0174900 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174900

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Schendzielorz P,
   2. Ilgen L,
   3. Mueller-Graff T, et al

   . Precise evaluation of the cochlear duct length by flat-panel volume computed tomography (fpVCT)—implication of secondary reconstructions. Otol Neurotol 2021;42:e294–303 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002951 pmid:33555750

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Spiegel JL,
   2. Polterauer D,
   3. Hempel JM, et al

   . Variation of the cochlear anatomy and cochlea duct length: analysis with a new tablet-based software. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022;279:1851–61 doi:10.1007/s00405-021-06889-0

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Muller-Graff FT,
   2. Ilgen L,
   3. Schendzielorz P, et al

   . Implementation of secondary reconstructions of flat-panel volume computed tomography (fpVCT) and otological planning software for anatomically based cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022;279:2309–19 doi:10.1007/s00405-021-06924-0

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Helpard L,
   2. Li H,
   3. Rask-Andersen H, et al

   . Characterization of the human helicotrema: implications for cochlear duct length and frequency mapping. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020;49:2 doi:10.1186/s40463-019-0398-8 pmid:31907040

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Helpard L,
   2. Li H,
   3. Rohani SA, et al

   . An approach for individualized cochlear frequency mapping determined from 3D synchrotron radiation phase-contrast imaging. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2021;68:3602–11 doi:10.1109/TBME.2021.3080116 pmid:33983877

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Jiam NT,
    2. Pearl MS,
    3. Carver C, et al

    . Flat-panel CT imaging for individualized pitch mapping in cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:672–79 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001060 pmid:27273394

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Dutrieux N,
    2. Quatre R,
    3. Péan V, et al

    . Correlation between cochlear length, insertion angle, and tonotopic mismatch for MED-EL FLEX28 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 2022;43:48–55 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000003337 pmid:34538852

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Chakravorti S,
    2. Noble JH,
    3. Gifford RH, et al

    . Further evidence of the relationship between cochlear implant electrode positioning and hearing outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2019;40:617–24 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002204 pmid:31083083

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Schurzig D,
    2. Timm ME,
    3. Batsoulis C, et al

    . Analysis of different approaches for clinical cochlear coverage evaluation after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2018;39:e642–50 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001904

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Buchman CA,
    2. Dillon MT,
    3. King ER, et al

    . Influence of cochlear implant insertion depth on performance: a prospective randomized trial. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:1773–79 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000541 pmid:25122601

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Kurz A,
    2. Herrmann D,
    3. Hagen R, et al

    . Using anatomy-based fitting to reduce frequency-to-place mismatch in experienced bilateral cochlear implant users: a promising concept. J Pers Med 2023;13:1109 doi:10.3390/jpm13071109

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Müller-Graff FT,
    2. Voelker J,
    3. Kurz A, et al

    . Accuracy of radiological prediction of electrode position with otological planning software and implications of high-resolution imaging. Cochlear Implants Int 2023;24:144–54 pmid:36617441

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Mertens G,
    2. Van de Heyning P,
    3. Vanderveken O, et al

    . The smaller the frequency-to-place mismatch the better the hearing outcomes in cochlear implant recipients? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022;279:1875–83 doi:10.1007/s00405-021-06899-y

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Arweiler-Harbeck D,
    2. Mönninghoff C,
    3. Greve J, et al

    . Imaging of electrode position after cochlear implantation with flat panel CT. ISRN Otolaryngol 2012;2012:728205 doi:10.5402/2012/728205 pmid:23762618

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Kemp P,
    2. Stralen JV,
    3. De Graaf P

    ; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, et al. Cone-beam CT compared to multi-slice CT for the diagnostic analysis of conductive hearing loss: a feasibility study. J Int Adv Otol 2020;16:222–26 doi:10.5152/iao.2020.5883

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Iyaniwura JE,
    2. Elfarnawany M,
    3. Riyahi-Alam S, et al

    . Intra- and interobserver variability of cochlear length measurements in clinical CT. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:828–32 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001411 pmid:28383464

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    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
22. 22.↵
    1. Waldeck S,
    2. Von Falck C,
    3. Chapot R, et al

    . Determination of cochlear duct length with 3D versus two-dimensional methods: a retrospective clinical study of imaging by computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography. In Vivo 2021;35:3339–44 doi:10.21873/invivo.12631

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    1. Rak K,
    2. Ilgen L,
    3. Taeger J, et al

    . [Influence of cochlear parameters on the current practice in cochlear implantation: development of a concept for personalized medicine. German version]. HNO 2021;69:943–51 doi:10.1007/s00106-020-00968-0 pmid:33315129

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Boyer E,
    2. Karkas A,
    3. Attye A, et al

    . Scalar localization by cone-beam computed tomography of cochlear implant carriers: a comparative study between straight and periomodiolar precurved electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:422–29 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000705 pmid:25575374

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Razafindranaly V,
    2. Truy E,
    3. Pialat JB, et al

    . Cone beam CT versus multislice CT: radiologic diagnostic agreement in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1246–54 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001165

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Escude B,
    2. James C,
    3. Deguine O, et al

    . The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurootol 2006;11 Suppl 1:27–33 doi:10.1159/000095611 pmid:17063008

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Waldeck S,
    2. Overhoff D,
    3. Alizadeh L, et al

    . Photon-counting detector CT virtual monoengergetic images for cochlear implant visualization—a head to head comparison to energy-integrating detector CT. Tomography 2022;8:1642–48 doi:10.3390/tomography8040136 pmid:35894001

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Hauptmann M,
    2. Byrnes G,
    3. Cardis E, et al

    . Brain cancer after radiation exposure from CT examinations of children and young adults: results from the EPI-CT cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2023;24:45–53 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00655-6 pmid:36493793

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Hermans R,
    2. Boomgaert L,
    3. Cockmartin L, et al

    . Photon-counting CT allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector CT. Insights Imaging 2023;14:112 doi:10.1186/s13244-023-01467-w pmid:37395919

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. McCollough CH,
    2. Rajendran K,
    3. Leng S, et al

    . The technical development of photon-counting detector CT. Eur Radiology 2023;33:5321–30 doi:10.1007/s00330-023-09545-9 pmid:37014409

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Rajendran K,
    2. Petersilka M,
    3. Henning A, et al

    . First clinical photon-counting detector CT system: technical evaluation. Radiology 2022;303:130–38 doi:10.1148/radiol.212579 pmid:34904876

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Flohr T,
    2. Schmidt B

    . Technical basics and clinical benefits of photon-counting CT. Invest Radiology 2023;58:441–50 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000980

    CrossRef
34. 34.↵
    1. Willemink MJ,
    2. Persson M,
    3. Pourmorteza A, et al

    . Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology 2018;289:293–312 doi:10.1148/radiol.2018172656 pmid:30179101

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Grunz JP,
    2. Petritsch B,
    3. Luetkens KS, et al

    . Ultra-low-dose photon-counting CT imaging of the paranasal sinus with tin prefiltration: how low can we go? Invest Radiology 2022;57:728–33 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000887

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Grunz JP,
    2. Heidenreich JF,
    3. Lennartz S, et al

    . Spectral shaping via tin prefiltration in ultra-high-resolution photon-counting and energy-integrating detector CT of the temporal bone. Invest Radiology 2022;57:819–25 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000901 pmid:35776435

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. McCollough C,
    2. Edyvean S,
    3. Gould B

    ; Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee Task Group #23, et al. The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. AAPM Report January 2008;96. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_96.pdf
38. 38.↵
    1. Wuerfel W,
    2. Burke W,
    3. Lenarz T, et al

    . Cochlear length determination in temporal bone specimens using histological serial-micro grinding imaging, micro computed tomography and flat-panel volumetric computed tomography. Online J Otolaryngol 2015;5:39–59
39. 39.↵
    1. Wurfel W,
    2. Lanfermann H,
    3. Lenarz T, et al

    . Cochlear length determination using cone beam computed tomography in a clinical setting. Hear Res 2014;316:65–72 doi:10.1016/j.heares.2014.07.013

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Meng J,
    2. Li S,
    3. Zhang F, et al

    . Cochlear size and shape variability and implications in cochlear implantation surgery. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1307–13 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001189 pmid:27579839

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Alexiades G,
    2. Dhanasingh A,
    3. Jolly C

    . Method to estimate the complete and two-turn cochlear duct length. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:904–07 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000620 pmid:25299827

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    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;2:2473974X18800238 doi:10.1177/2473974X18800238

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Greenwood DD

    . A cochlear frequency-position function for several species–29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;87:2592–605 doi:10.1121/1.399052 pmid:2373794

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
44. 44.↵
    1. Stakhovskaya O,
    2. Sridhar D,
    3. Bonham BH, et al

    . Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007;8:220–33 doi:10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9 pmid:17318276

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
45. 45.↵
    1. Koch RW,
    2. Elfarnawany M,
    3. Zhu N, et al

    . Evaluation of cochlear duct length computations using synchrotron radiation phase-contrast imaging. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:e92–99 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001410

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Lexow GJ,
    2. Kluge M,
    3. Gellrich NC, et al

    . On the accuracy of cochlear duct length measurement in computed tomographic images. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018;275:1077–85 doi:10.1007/s00405-018-4930-7

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    1. Jiam NT,
    2. Gilbert M,
    3. Cooke D, et al

    . Association between flat-panel computed tomographic imaging-guided place-pitch mapping and speech and pitch perception in cochlear implant users. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;145:109–16 doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.3096

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    1. Tada A,
    2. Sato S,
    3. Masaoka Y, et al

    . Imaging of the temporal bone in children using low-dose 320-row area detector computed tomography. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2017;61:489–93 doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12596 pmid:28244219

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    1. Zhou W,
    2. Lane JI,
    3. Carlson ML, et al

    . Comparison of a photon-counting-detector CT with an energy-integrating-detector CT for temporal bone imaging: a cadaveric study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1733–38 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5768

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
51. 51.↵
    1. Benson JC,
    2. Rajendran K,
    3. Lane JI, et al

    . A new frontier in temporal bone imaging: photon-counting detector CT demonstrates superior visualization of critical anatomic structures at reduced radiation dose. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2022;43:579–84 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7452

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
52. 52.↵
    1. Mirsalehi M,
    2. Rau TS,
    3. Harbach L, et al

    . Insertion forces and intracochlear trauma in temporal bone specimens implanted with a straight atraumatic electrode array. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274:2131–40 doi:10.1007/s00405-017-4485-z pmid:28238160

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    1. Helbig S,
    2. Settevendemie C,
    3. Mack M, et al

    . Evaluation of an electrode prototype for atraumatic cochlear implantation in hearing preservation candidates: preliminary results from a temporal bone study. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:419–23 doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e31820e75d9 pmid:21307807

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    1. Schendzielorz P,
    2. Ilgen L,
    3. Müller-Graff FT, et al

    . Precise evaluation of the postoperative cochlear duct length by flat-panel volume computed tomography—application of secondary reconstructions. Cochlear Implants Int 2022;23:32–42 doi:10.1080/14670100.2021.1973208 pmid:34519256

    CrossRefPubMed