Analysis of Intersubject Variations in Intracochlear and Middle Ear Surface Anatomy for Cochlear Implantation

Hypothesis We hypothesize that surface landmarks surrounding the round window typically used to guide electrode placement during cochlear implantation (CI) exhibit substantial variability with respect to intracochlear anatomy. Background Recent publications suggest that both atraumatic electrode insertion and electrode location within the scala tympani can affect auditory performance after CI. However, current techniques for electrode insertion rely on surface landmarks alone for navigation, without actual visualization of intracochlear structures other than what can be seen through a surgically created cochleostomy. In this study, we quantify how well the position of intracochlear anatomy is predicted by surface landmarks surrounding the round window. Methods Structures representing middle ear surface and intracochlear anatomy were reconstructed in &mgr;CT scans of 10 temporal bone specimens. These structures were then reoriented into a normalized coordinate system to facilitate measurement of inter-subject anatomical shape variations. Results Only minor intersubject variations were detected for intracochlear anatomy (maximum deviation, 0.71 mm; standard deviation, 0.21 mm), with greatest differences existing near the hook and apex. Larger intersubject variations in intracochlear structures were detected when considered relative to surface landmarks surrounding the round window (maximum deviation, 0.83 mm; standard deviation, 0.54 mm). Conclusion The cochlea and its scala exhibit considerable variability in relation to middle ear surface landmarks. While support for more precise, atraumatic CI electrode insertion techniques is growing in the otologic community, landmark guided insertion techniques have limited precision. Refining the CI insertion process may require the development of image-guidance systems for use in otologic surgery.

[1]  Benoit M. Dawant,et al.  The adaptive bases algorithm for intensity-based nonrigid image registration , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  K. S. Arun,et al.  Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[3]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Comparison of Round Window and Cochleostomy Approaches with a Prototype Hearing Preservation Electrode , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[4]  Martin Westhofen,et al.  The Internal Dimensions of the Cochlear Scalae With Special Reference to Cochlear Electrode Insertion Trauma , 2010, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[5]  Richard S Tyler,et al.  Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant. , 2010, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[6]  Benoit M. Dawant,et al.  Image guidance could aid performance of atraumatic cochlear implantation surgical techniques , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[7]  Omid Majdani,et al.  Automatic Segmentation of Intracochlear Anatomy in Conventional CT , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  René H Gifford,et al.  Implications of Minimizing Trauma During Conventional Cochlear Implantation , 2011, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[9]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[10]  Xenia Meshik,et al.  Optimal Cochlear Implant Insertion Vectors , 2010, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[11]  Peter S Roland,et al.  Surgical aspects of cochlear implantation: mechanisms of insertional trauma. , 2006, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[12]  William J. Schroeder,et al.  The Visualization Toolkit , 2005, The Visualization Handbook.

[13]  John K. Niparko,et al.  Cochlear Coiling Pattern and Orientation Differences in Cochlear Implant Candidates , 2011, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[14]  Thomas Klenzner,et al.  Quality Control After Insertion of the Nucleus Contour and Contour Advance Electrode in Adults , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Guy Marchal,et al.  Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[16]  Helge Rask-Andersen,et al.  Variational Anatomy of the Human Cochlea: Implications for Cochlear Implantation , 2009, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.