Validation of Automatic Cochlear Measurements Using OTOPLAN Software

Overview

Journal J Pers Med

Date 2023 May 27

PMID 37240975

Authors

Dimitrios Paouris

Samuel Kunzo

Irina Goljerova

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Electrode length selection based on case-related cochlear parameters is becoming a standard pre-operative step for cochlear implantation. The manual measurement of the parameters is often time-consuming and may lead to inconsistencies. Our work aimed to evaluate a novel, automatic measurement method.

Materials And Methods: A retrospective evaluation of pre-operative HRCT images of 109 ears (56 patients) was conducted, using a development version of the OTOPLAN software. Inter-rater (intraclass) reliability and execution time were assessed for manual (surgeons R1 and R2) vs. automatic (AUTO) results. The analysis included A-Value (Diameter), B-Value (Width), H-Value (Height), and CDLOC-length (Cochlear Duct Length at Organ of Corti/Basilar membrane).

Results: The measurement time was reduced from approximately 7 min ± 2 (min) (manual) to 1 min (AUTO). Cochlear parameters in mm (mean ± SD) for R1, R2 and AUTO, respectively, were A-value: 9.00 ± 0.40, 8.98 ± 0.40 and 9.16 ± 0.36; B-value: 6.81 ± 0.34, 6.71 ± 0.35 and 6.70 ± 0.40; H-value: 3.98 ± 0.25, 3.85 ± 0.25 and 3.76 ± 0.22; and the mean CDLoc-length: 35.64 ± 1.70, 35.20 ± 1.71 and 35.47 ± 1.87. AUTO CDLOC measurements were not significantly different compared to R1 and R2 (H0: Rx CDLOC = AUTO CDLOC: = 0.831, = 0.242, respectively), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for CDLOC was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.932) for R1 vs. AUTO; 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.932) for R2 vs. AUTO; and 0.893 (95% CI: 0.809, 0.935) for R1 vs. R2.

Conclusions: We observed excellent inter-rater reliability, a high agreement of outcomes, and reduced execution time using the AUTO method.

Citing Articles

Automated segmentation of clinical CT scans of the cochlea and analysis of the cochlea's vertical profile.

Siebrecht M, Briaire J, Verbist B, Kalkman R, Frijns J Heliyon. 2024; 10(16):e35737.

PMID: 39224385 PMC: 11367034. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35737.

Application of anatomy-based spacing of electrode contacts for achieving a uniform semitonal resolution: A novel concept in cochlear implant electrode design.

Aljazeeri I, Hagr A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2645.

PMID: 38302541 PMC: 10834526. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-53070-8.

Otological Planning Software-OTOPLAN: A Narrative Literature Review.

Gatto A, Tofanelli M, Costariol L, Rizzo S, Borsetto D, Gardenal N Audiol Res. 2023; 13(5):791-801.

PMID: 37887851 PMC: 10603892. DOI: 10.3390/audiolres13050070.

References

Xu J, Xu S, Cohen L, Clark G . Cochlear view: postoperative radiography for cochlear implantation. Am J Otol. 2000; 21(1):49-56. View

Hochmair I, Arnold W, Nopp P, Jolly C, Muller J, Roland P . Deep electrode insertion in cochlear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech perception results. Acta Otolaryngol. 2003; 123(5):612-7. View

Mertens G, Van de Heyning P, Vanderveken O, Topsakal V, Van Rompaey V . The smaller the frequency-to-place mismatch the better the hearing outcomes in cochlear implant recipients?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021; 279(4):1875-1883. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-06899-y. View

Koo T, Li M . A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15(2):155-63. PMC: 4913118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. View

Breitsprecher T, Dhanasingh A, Schulze M, Kipp M, Dakah R, Oberhoffner T . CT imaging-based approaches to cochlear duct length estimation-a human temporal bone study. Eur Radiol. 2021; 32(2):1014-1023. PMC: 8794899. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08189-x. View

Mertens G, Van Rompaey V, Van de Heyning P, Gorris E, Topsakal V . Prediction of the Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion Depth: Clinical Applicability of two Analytical Cochlear Models. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):3340. PMC: 7039896. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-58648-6. View

GREENWOOD D . Critical bandwidth and consonance in relation to cochlear frequency-position coordinates. Hear Res. 1991; 54(2):164-208. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(91)90117-r. View

Boex C, Baud L, Cosendai G, Sigrist A, Kos M, Pelizzone M . Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2006; 7(2):110-24. PMC: 2504582. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-005-0027-2. View

Verbist B, Skinner M, Cohen L, Leake P, James C, Boex C . Consensus panel on a cochlear coordinate system applicable in histologic, physiologic, and radiologic studies of the human cochlea. Otol Neurotol. 2010; 31(5):722-30. PMC: 2945386. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181d279e0. View

10.

Thomas J, Klein H, Haubitz I, Dazert S, Volter C . Intra- and Interrater Reliability of CT- versus MRI-Based Cochlear Duct Length Measurement in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Candidates and Its Impact on Personalized Electrode Array Selection. J Pers Med. 2023; 13(4). PMC: 10142378. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13040633. View

11.

Marsh M, Xu J, Blamey P, Whitford L, Xu S, Silverman J . Radiologic evaluation of multichannel intracochlear implant insertion depth. Am J Otol. 1993; 14(4):386-91. View

12.

Canfarotta M, OConnell B, Buss E, Pillsbury H, Brown K, Dillon M . Influence of Age at Cochlear Implantation and Frequency-to-Place Mismatch on Early Speech Recognition in Adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020; 162(6):926-932. PMC: 8590812. DOI: 10.1177/0194599820911707. View

13.

Ulehlova L, VOLDRICH L, Janisch R . Correlative study of sensory cell density and cochlear length in humans. Hear Res. 1987; 28(2-3):149-51. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(87)90045-1. View

14.

Escude B, James C, Deguine O, Cochard N, Eter E, Fraysse B . 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. View

15.

Alexiades G, Dhanasingh A, Jolly C . Method to estimate the complete and two-turn cochlear duct length. Otol Neurotol. 2014; 36(5):904-7. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000620. View

16.

Buchman C, Dillon M, King E, Adunka M, Adunka O, Pillsbury H . Influence of cochlear implant insertion depth on performance: a prospective randomized trial. Otol Neurotol. 2014; 35(10):1773-9. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000541. View

17.

Weber L, Kwok P, Picou E, Wendl C, Bohr C, Marcrum S . [Measuring the cochlea using a tablet-based software package: influence of imaging modality and rater background]. HNO. 2022; 70(10):769-777. PMC: 9512738. DOI: 10.1007/s00106-022-01208-3. View

18.

Kos M, Boex C, Sigrist A, Guyot J, Pelizzone M . Measurements of electrode position inside the cochlea for different cochlear implant systems. Acta Otolaryngol. 2005; 125(5):474-80. DOI: 10.1080/00016480510039995. View

19.

Nash R, Otero S, Lavy J . Use of MRI to determine cochlear duct length in patients undergoing cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int. 2018; 20(2):57-61. DOI: 10.1080/14670100.2018.1549186. View

20.

Khurayzi T, Almuhawas F, Alsanosi A, Abdelsamad Y, Doyle U, Dhanasingh A . A novel cochlear measurement that predicts inner-ear malformation. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):7339. PMC: 8016924. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-86741-x. View