Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 24(04): e492-e495
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701272
Original Research

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

Anup Singh 
1   Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Rajeev Kumar
1   Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Smita Manchanda
2   Department of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Ashu Seith Bhalla
2   Department of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Prem Sagar
1   Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
David Victor Kumar Irugu
1   Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction 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.

Objective The objective of the current study was to determine the CDL in an Indian adult cadaveric population.

Methods 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.

Results 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.

Conclusion 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.

Keywords

cochlear implantation - cochlear duct - tomography - adult - cadaver


Publication History

Received: 06 October 2018

Accepted: 20 November 2019

Article published online:
27 February 2020

© .

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Hardy M. The length of the organ of Corti in man. Am J Anat 1938; 62: 291-311
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bredberg G. Cellular pattern and nerve supply of the human organ of Corti. Acta Otolaryngol 1968; (Suppl. 236) 1+
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Retzius G. Das gehororgan der werbelthiere. Morphologisch histologische studien. Samsen and Waalin, Stockholm. Vol I 1881; II: 1884
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Alexiades G, Dhanasingh A, Jolly C. Method to estimate the complete and two-turn cochlear duct length. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (05) 904-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Blake S. Wilson, Michael F. Dorman, The design of cochlear implants. In: John K. Niparko, Editor. Cochlear Implants: Principles & Practices. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009: 97
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Ulehlová L, Voldřich L, Janisch R. Correlative study of sensory cell density and cochlear length in humans. Hear Res 1987; 28 (2-3): 149-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Würfel W, Lanfermann H, Lenarz T, Majdani O. Cochlear length determination using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in a clinical setting. Hear Res 2014; 316: 65-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Thong JF, Low D, Tham A, Liew C, Tan TY, Yuen HW. Cochlear duct length-one size fits all?. Am J Otolaryngol 2017; 38 (02) 218-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Grover M, Sharma S, Singh SN, Kataria T, Lakhawat RS, Sharma MP. Measuring cochlear duct length in Asian population: worth giving a thought!. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 275 (03) 725-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sato H, Sando I, Takahashi H. Sexual dimorphism and development of the human cochlea. Computer 3-D measurement. Acta Otolaryngol 1991; 111 (06) 1037-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Koch RW, Ladak HM, Elfarnawany M, Agrawal SK. Measuring Cochlear Duct Length - a historical analysis of methods and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 46 (01) 19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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): 515-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM. Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction in human cochlear maps: measurement of the lengths of organ of Corti, outer wall, inner wall, and Rosenthal's canal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996; 105 (09) 701-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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 Neurotol 2006; 11 (Suppl. 01) 27-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Meng J, Li S, Zhang F, Li Q, Qin Z. Cochlear size and shape variability and implications in cochlear implantation surgery. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (09) 1307-1313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yukawa K, Cohen L, Blamey P, Pyman B, Tungvachirakul V, O'Leary S. Effects of insertion depth of cochlear implant electrodes upon speech perception. Audiol Neurotol 2004; 9 (03) 163-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK. et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29 (07) 920-928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mori MC, Chang KW. CT analysis demonstrates that cochlear height does not change with age. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012; 33 (01) 119-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pelliccia P, Venail F, Bonafé A. et al. Cochlea size variability and implications in clinical practice. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2014; 34 (01) 42-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar