» Articles » PMID: 33101517

Radiographic Measurement of Cochlear Duct Length in an Indian Cadaveric Population - Importance of Custom Fit Cochlear Implant Electrodes

Overview
Publisher Thieme
Date 2020 Oct 26
PMID 33101517
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

 Successful cochlear implantation requires an appropriate insertion depth of the electrode, which depends on cochlear duct length CDL). The CDL can vary due to ethnic factors.  The objective of the current study was to determine the CDL in an Indian adult cadaveric population.  The present was a cadaveric study using the temporal bones obtained after permission of the Institutional Review Board. The temporal bones were subjected to high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), and the double oblique reformatted CT images were reconstructed through the basal turn of the cochlea. The reformatted images were then viewed in the minimum-intensity projection (minIP) mode, and the 'A' value (the diameter of the basal turn of the cochlea) was calculated. The CDL was then measured using the formula CDL = 4.16A - 4 (Alexiades et al). The data analysis was performed using the Microsoft Excel software, version 2016.  A total of 51 temporal bones were included for imaging analysis. The CDL varied from 27.6 mm to 33.4 mm, with a mean length of 30.7 mm. There was no statistically significant difference between the two sides.  The CDL can be calculated with preoperative high-resolution CT, and can provide a roadmap for effective cochlear implant electrode insertion. The population-based anatomical variability needs to be taken into account to offer the most efficient and least traumatic insertion of the electrode.

Citing Articles

Estimation of outer-wall length in optimizing cochlear implantation in malformed inner ears.

Alshalan A, Abdelsamad Y, Alahmadi A, Santoro F, Alhabib S, Almuhawas F Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):27308.

PMID: 39516527 PMC: 11549294. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-77991-6.


Cochlear duct length in Pakistani cochlear implant recipients gender, age and side association: A Radiological Measure.

Sarwar Z, Ahmed J, Saqulain G, Khan M Pak J Med Sci. 2024; 40(1Part-I):41-45.

PMID: 38196493 PMC: 10772454. DOI: 10.12669/pjms.40.1.7426.


Determination of Cochlear Duct Length With 3D Two-dimensional Methods: A Retrospective Clinical Study of Imaging by Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography.

Waldeck S, von Falck C, Chapot R, Brockmann M, Overhoff D In Vivo. 2021; 35(6):3339-3344.

PMID: 34697167 PMC: 8627706. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12631.

References
1.
Yukawa K, Cohen L, Blamey P, Pyman B, Tungvachirakul V, OLeary S . Effects of insertion depth of cochlear implant electrodes upon speech perception. Audiol Neurootol. 2004; 9(3):163-72. DOI: 10.1159/000077267. View

2.
Koch R, Ladak H, Elfarnawany M, Agrawal S . Measuring Cochlear Duct Length - a historical analysis of methods and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017; 46(1):19. PMC: 5341452. DOI: 10.1186/s40463-017-0194-2. View

3.
Takagi A, SANDO I . Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction: a method of measuring temporal bone structures including the length of the cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1989; 98(7 Pt 1):515-22. DOI: 10.1177/000348948909800705. View

4.
Thong J, Low D, Tham A, Liew C, Tan T, Yuen H . Cochlear duct length-one size fits all?. Am J Otolaryngol. 2017; 38(2):218-221. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.01.015. View

5.
Mori M, Chang K . CT analysis demonstrates that cochlear height does not change with age. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011; 33(1):119-23. PMC: 7966167. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2713. View