» Articles » PMID: 27752754

Visualization of Anatomy in Normal and Pathologic Middle Ears by Cone Beam CT

Overview
Date 2016 Oct 19
PMID 27752754
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT, syn. digital volume tomography = DVT) was introduced into ENT imaging more than 10 years ago. The main focus was on imaging of the paranasal sinuses and traumatology of the mid face. In recent years, it has also been used in imaging of chronic ear diseases (especially in visualizing middle and inner ear implants), but an exact description of the advantages and limitations of visualizing precise anatomy in a relevant number of patients is still missing. The data sets of CBCT imaging of the middle and inner ear of 204 patients were analyzed regarding the visualization of 18 different anatomic structures. A three-step scale (excellent visible, partial visible, not visible) was taken. All analyses were performed by two surgeons experienced in otology and imaging. The indications for imaging were chronic middle ear disease or conductive hearing loss. Previously operated patients were excluded to rule out possible confounders. In dependence of a radiological pathology/opacity of the middle ear, two groups (with and without pathology) were built. Regarding the possibility of excellent visualization, significant differences were only found for small bony structures: incu-stapedial joint (25.8 vs. 63.5 %), long process of incus (42.7 vs. 88.8 %), head of stapes (27.0 vs. 62.6 %), anterior crus of stapes (16.9 vs. 40.9 %) and posterior crus of stapes (19.1 vs. 42.6 %). The other structures (semicircular canals, skull base at mastoid and middle ear, jugular bulb, sinus sigmoideus, facial nerve) could be visualized well in both groups with rates around 85-100 %. Even CBCT shows little limitations in visualization of the small structures of the middle and inner ear. Big bony structures can be visualized in normal as well as in pathologic ears. Overall, due to pathology of middle ear, an additional limitation of evaluation of the ossicular chain exists. In future, studies should focus on comparative evaluation of different diseases and different radiological modalities and be performed by radiologists and otologists together to improve the quality of reports and to answer clinical questions more satisfactorily.

Citing Articles

Morphometric evaluation of middle ear anatomical structures using full volume (12 × 9) CBCT scans: A retrospective study in Navi Mumbai.

Verma S, Patil B, Das D Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2025; 15(3):489-493.

PMID: 39830467 PMC: 11737569. DOI: 10.4103/njms.njms_10_23.


Clinical High-Resolution Imaging of the Inner Ear by Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).

Santek T, Hofmann E, Milewski C, Schwager K, Prescher A J Pers Med. 2024; 14(6).

PMID: 38929858 PMC: 11205160. DOI: 10.3390/jpm14060637.


Cost-effective 3D scanning and printing technologies for outer ear reconstruction: current status.

Wersenyi G, Scheper V, Spagnol S, Eixelberger T, Wittenberg T Head Face Med. 2023; 19(1):46.

PMID: 37891625 PMC: 10612312. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-023-00394-x.


Assessment of subjective image quality, contrast to noise ratio and modulation transfer function in the middle ear using a novel full body cone beam computed tomography device.

Heikkinen A, Rissanen V, Aarnisalo A, Nyman K, Sinkkonen S, Koivisto J BMC Med Imaging. 2023; 23(1):51.

PMID: 37038130 PMC: 10084678. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-023-00996-6.


Olfactory Fossa Evaluation as a Maxillary Sinus Development Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography.

Sancar B, Duman S Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022; 74(Suppl 2):1566-1570.

PMID: 36452797 PMC: 9702288. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-021-02700-y.


References
1.
Casselman J, De Foer B, De Bondt B . [Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the head and neck]. J Radiol. 2010; 91(3 Pt 2):369-74. DOI: 10.1016/s0221-0363(10)70052-4. View

2.
Offergeld C, Kromeier J, Aschendorff A, Maier W, Klenzner T, Beleites T . Rotational tomography of the normal and reconstructed middle ear in temporal bones: an experimental study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006; 264(4):345-51. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-006-0180-1. View

3.
Majdani O, THEWS K, Bartling S, Leinung M, Dalchow C, Labadie R . Temporal bone imaging: comparison of flat panel volume CT and multisection CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009; 30(7):1419-24. PMC: 7051536. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1560. View

4.
Prades J, Elmaleh-Berges M, Chatard S, Veyret C, Martin C, Richard C . [Computed tomography of the normal and pathologic temporal bone]. Morphologie. 2011; 95(311):159-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.morpho.2011.09.001. View

5.
Teymoortash A, Hamzei S, Murthum T, Eivazi B, Kureck I, Werner J . Temporal bone imaging using digital volume tomography and computed tomography: a comparative cadaveric radiological study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010; 33(2):123-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-010-0713-6. View