Internal auditory canal volume in normal and malformed inner ears.

PURPOSE: A narrow bony internal auditory canal (IAC) may be associated with a hypoplastic cochlear nerve and poorer hearing performances after cochlear implantation. However, definitions for a narrow IAC vary widely and commonly, qualitative grading or two-dimensional measures are used to characterize a narrow IAC. We aimed to refine the definition of a narrow IAC by determining IAC volume in both control patients and patients with inner ear malformations (IEMs). METHODS: In this multicentric study, we included high-resolution CT (HRCT) scans of 128 temporal bones (85 with IEMs: cochlear aplasia, n = 11; common cavity, n = 2; cochlear hypoplasia type, n = 19; incomplete partition type I/III, n = 8/8; Mondini malformation, n = 16; enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome, n = 19; 45 controls). The IAC diameter was measured in the axial plane and the IAC volume was measured by semi-automatic segmentation and three-dimensional reconstruction. RESULTS: In controls, the mean IAC diameter was 5.5 mm (SD 1.1 mm) and the mean IAC volume was 175.3 mm3 (SD 52.6 mm3). Statistically significant differences in IAC volumes were found in cochlear aplasia (68.3 mm3, p < 0.0001), IPI (107.4 mm3, p = 0.04), and IPIII (277.5 mm3, p = 0.0004 mm3). Inter-rater reliability was higher in IAC volume than in IAC diameter (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.92 vs. 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Volumetric measurement of IAC in cases of IEMs reduces measurement variability and may add to classifying IEMs. Since a hypoplastic IAC can be associated with a hypoplastic cochlear nerve and sensorineural hearing loss, radiologic assessment of the IAC is crucial in patients with severe sensorineural hearing loss undergoing cochlear implantation.

Volumetry improves the assessment of the vestibular aqueduct size in inner ear malformation.

OBJECTIVES: Enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) is a common finding associated with inner ear malformations (IEM). However, uniform radiologic definitions for EVA are missing and various 2D-measurement methods to define EVA have been reported. This study evaluates VA volume in different types of IEM and compares 3D-reconstructed VA volume to 2D-measurements. METHODS: A total of 98 high-resolution CT (HRCT) data sets from temporal bones were analyzed (56 with IEM; [cochlear hypoplasia (CH; n = 18), incomplete partition type I (IPI; n = 12) and type II (IPII; n = 11) and EVA (n = 15)]; 42 controls). VA diameter was measured in axial images. VA volume was analyzed by software-based, semi-automatic segmentation and 3D-reconstruction. Differences in VA volume between the groups and associations between VA volume and VA diameter were assessed. Inter-rater-reliability (IRR) was assessed using the intra-class-correlation-coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Larger VA volumes were found in IEM compared to controls. Significant differences in VA volume between patients with EVA and controls (p < 0.001) as well as between IPII and controls (p < 0.001) were found. VA diameter at the midpoint (VA midpoint) and at the operculum (VA operculum) correlated to VA volume in IPI (VA midpoint: r = 0.78, VA operculum: r = 0.91), in CH (VA midpoint: r = 0.59, VA operculum: r = 0.61), in EVA (VA midpoint: r = 0.55, VA operculum: r = 0.66) and in controls (VA midpoint: r = 0.36, VA operculum: r = 0.42). The highest IRR was found for VA volume (ICC = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The VA diameter may be an insufficient estimate of VA volume, since (1) measurement of VA diameter does not reliably correlate with VA volume and (2) VA diameter shows a lower IRR than VA volume. 3D-reconstruction and VA volumetry may add information in diagnosing EVA in cases with or without additional IEM.

Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion Depth on Speech Perception Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Objective: The suitable electrode array choice is broadly discussed in cochlear implantation surgery. Whether to use a shorter electrode length under the aim of structure preservation versus choosing a longer array to achieve a greater cochlear coverage is a matter of debate. The aim of this review is to identify the impact of the insertion depth of a cochlear implant (CI) electrode array on CI users' speech perception outcomes. Databases Reviewed: PubMed was searched for English-language articles that were published in a peer-reviewed journal from 1997 to 2022. Methods: A systematic electronic search of the literature was carried out using PubMed to find relevant literature on the impact of insertion depth on speech perception. The review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines of reporting. Studies in both, children and adults with pre- or postlingual hearing loss, implanted with a CI were included in this study. Articles written in languages other than English, literature reviews, meta-analyses, animal studies, histopathological studies, or studies pertaining exclusively to imaging modalities without reporting correlations between insertion depth and speech outcomes were excluded. The risk of bias was determined using the "Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions" tool. Articles were extracted by 2 authors independently using predefined search terms. The titles and abstracts were screened manually to identify studies that potentially meet the inclusion criteria. The extracted information included: the study population, type of hearing loss, outcomes reported, devices used, speech perception outcomes, insertion depth (linear insertion depth and/or the angular insertion depth), and correlation between insertion depth and the speech perception outcomes. Results: A total of 215 relevant studies were assessed for eligibility. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed further. Seven studies found no significant correlation between insertion depth and speech perception outcomes. Fifteen found either a significant positive correlation or a positive effect between insertion depth and speech perception. Only 1 study found a significant negative correlation between insertion depth and speech perception outcomes. Conclusion: Although most studies reported a positive effect of insertion depth on speech perception outcomes, one-third of the identified studies reported no correlation. Thus, the insertion depth must be considered as a contributing factor to speech perception rather than as a major decisive criterion. Registration: This review has been registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42021257547), available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Cochlear and Vestibular Volumes in Inner Ear Malformations.

A "gold standard" for quantitatively diagnosing inner ear malformations (IEMs) and a consensus on normative measurements are lacking. Reference ranges and cutoff values of inner ear dimensions may add in distinguishing IEM types. This study evaluates the volumes of the cochlea and vestibular system in different types of IEM. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary academic center. PATIENTS: High-resolution CT scans of 115 temporal bones (70 with IEM; cochlear hypoplasia [CH]; n = 19), incomplete partition (IP) Types I and III (n = 16), IP Type II with an enlarged vestibular aqueduct (Mondini malformation; n = 16), enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome (n = 19), and 45 controls. INTERVENTIONS: Volumetry by software-based, semiautomatic segmentation, and 3D reconstruction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in volumes among IEM and between IEM types and controls; interrater reliability. RESULTS: Compared with controls (mean volume, 78.0 mm3), only CH showed a significantly different cochlear volume (mean volume, 30.2 mm3; p < 0.0001) among all types of IEM. A cutoff value of 60 mm3 separated 100% of CH cases from controls. Compared with controls, significantly larger vestibular system volumes were found in Mondini malformation (mean difference, 22.9 mm3; p = 0.009) and IP (mean difference, 24.1 mm3; p = 0.005). In contrast, CH showed a significantly smaller vestibular system volume (mean difference, 41.1 mm3; p < 0.0001). A good interrater reliability was found for all three-dimensional measurements (ICC = 0.86-0.91). CONCLUSION: Quantitative reference values for IEM obtained in this study were in line with existing qualitative diagnostic characteristics. A cutoff value less than 60 mm3 may indicate an abnormally small cochlea. Normal reference values for volumes of the cochlea and vestibular system may aid in diagnosing IEM.