Skip to main content

Miniature cochlea: a study of radiological measurements and its implications during the cochlear implant surgery

En

Abstract

Hypothesis

Approximately 25% of patients with congenital sensorineural or mixed hearing loss show bony inner ear malformations on computed tomography (CT) of the temporal bone, with significantly smaller cochlear height (CH) compared with normal-hearing patients. The miniature cochlea has an apparently normal radiological appearance and could be missed if proper measurements are not taken. Inner ear measurements not only aid in the duplication of radiologically diagnosed inner ear malformation but can also provide additional information about which specific part is abnormal.

Aims

The aims of the present study were to establish the normal measurements of the height and width of fully developed Egyptian cochleae using high-resolution CT scans of the temporal bone in normal individuals, and to predict the characteristic radiologic sings and measurements of miniature cochlea and its implication during cochlear implant surgery.

Study design

The authors conducted a prospective, comparative study.

Patients and methods

The study comprised three groups: the control group, which comprised 50 cochleae with normal hearing and negative history for head trauma or ear surgery; the patients group, which comprised candidates for cochlear implanting with a negative history for meningitis or head trauma, and was further subclassified into group A, which comprised 22 cochleae with CH small but not less than 2 SD from the controls, and group B, which comprised nine cochleae with CH less than 2 SD from the controls. High-resolution 64-slice CT scan of 1 mm slice thickness was obtained; in addition, CH, basal turn height and width, upper turn height and width, and oval window–round window distance were estimated according to well-established definitions in the literature.

Results

CH in the control group ranged between 4.8 and 6.9 mm, with a mean of 6.1 ± 0.29 mm, whereas, in group A, CH showed a mean of 5.9 ± 0.34 mm, which was statistically significant compared with the control group. In group B, CH showed a mean of 3.8 ± 0.31 mm, which was also statistically significant compared with the other two groups. The basal turn width, upper turn width, and oval window to the round window distance–all showed statistically significant difference when compared within the three groups. In contrast, both basal turn height and upper turn height showed no significant difference when compared within the three groups.

Conclusion

In cochlear implant surgery, the detailed and good radiological analysis aids in a safe, effective, and well-planned surgery. The development of standardized measurements to complement visual inspection improved the diagnostic accuracy and helped in the subclassification of hypoplastic cochleae. We found CH to be the most essential differentiating measurement in the subclassification and diagnosis of hypoplastic and dwarf cochleae. If dwarf cochlea is radiologically diagnosed, special surgical modifications regarding electrode length and site of cochleostomy during cochlear implanting should be applied.

References

  1. 1

    Mafong DD, Shin EJ, Lalwani AK. Use of laboratory evaluation and radiologic imaging in the diagnostic evaluation of children with sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2002; 112: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Purcell D, Johnson J, Fischbein N, Lalwani AK. Establishment of normative cochlear and vestibular measurements to aid in the diagnosis of inner ear malformations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 128: 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Ballantyne J. Review of Harold F. Schuknecht ‘Pathology of the ear’. J Laryngol Otol 1975; 89: 981–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Sennaroglu L, Saatci I. A new classification for cochleovestibular malformations. Laryngoscope 2002; 112: 2230–2241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Park AH, Kou B, Hotaling A, Azar-Kia B, Leonetti J, Papsin B. Clinical course of pediatric congenital inner ear malformations. Laryngoscope 2000; 110: 1715–1719.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Mori MC, Chang KW. CT analysis demonstrates that cochlear height does not change with age. Am J Neuroradiol 2012; 33: 119–123.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Giesemann AM, Goetz F, Neuburger J, Lenarz T, Lanfermann H. Appearance of hypoplastic cochleae in CT and MRI: a new subclassification. Neuroradiology 2011; 53: 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Fernando AF, Joseph B, Opulencia AP, Maglalang GM, Chua AH. An Anatomical study of the cochlea among Filipinos using high-resolution computed tomography scans. Philippine J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011; 26: 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Escudé 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: 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Lane JI, Witte RJ. The temporal bone: an Imaging Atlas. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Springer 2010; 30: 4086.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Jackler RK, Luxford WM, House WF. Congenital malformations of the inner ear: a classification based on embryogenesis. Laryngoscope 1987; 97: 2–14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Lo WW. What is a Mondini and what difference does a name make? Am J Neuroradiol 1999; 20: 1442–1444.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Schuknecht HF. Pathology of the ear. Malvern, PA:Lea & Febiger; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Purcell DD, Fischbein NJ, Patel A, Johnson J, Lalwani AK. Two temporal bone computed tomography measurements increase recognition of malformations and predict sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2006; 116: 1439–1446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Chen JL, Gittleman A, Barnes PD, Chang KW. Utility of temporal bone computed tomographic measurements in the evaluation of inner ear malformations. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 134: 50–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hossam M. Kamal Rabie MD.

Additional information

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work noncommercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tarabishi, M.N., Sarwat, A.A., Kamal Rabie, H.M. et al. Miniature cochlea: a study of radiological measurements and its implications during the cochlear implant surgery. Egypt J Otolaryngol 32, 170–177 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4103/1012-5574.186524

Download citation

Keywords

  • cochlear height
  • cochlear implant
  • cochlear measurements
  • dwarf cochlea
  • hypoplastic cochlea
  • miniature cochlea