Colby C C, Todd N W, Harnsberger H R, Hudgins P A
From the Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (C.C.C.), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (N.W.T.).
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Feb;36(2):368-71. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4105. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
Imaging a cochlear implant with CT is challenging because of implant-induced artifacts, anatomic cochlear variations, and lack of standard terminology for cochlear anatomy. The purposes of this project were to determine whether the cochlear implant tip was more accurately located on oblique CT reformations than on standard images, to review radiology reports for accurate cochlear implant locations, and to assess agreement between an implant surgeon and neuroradiologist by using standardized cochlear anatomy terminology for cochlear implant depth.
In this retrospective study, a neuroradiologist and an implant surgeon independently viewed temporal bone CT images of 36 ears with cochlear implants. Direct axial images, standard coronal reformations, and oblique reformations parallel to the cochlea were compared to determine implant tip location, which was described by using a proposed standardized quadrant terminology. Implant locations were compared with the initial formal report generated by the original interpreting neuroradiologist.
Thirty-six temporal bones with cochlear implants underwent CT interpretation for implant location. Interobserver agreement was similar when comparing cochlear implant tip location by using a quadrant nomenclature on axial and coronal images and on oblique reformations. Clinical radiology reports all were imprecise and ambiguous in describing the location of the cochlear implant tip.
Accurate determination of insertion depth of the cochlear implant array can be determined by assessment of the implant tip on axial, coronal, and oblique CT images, but description of the tip location can be inaccurate due to lack of standardized terminology. We propose using a standardized terminology to communicate tip location by using the round window as the zero reference and quadrant numbering to describe cochlear turns. This results in improvement in radiology report accuracy and consistency regarding the cochlear implant insertion depth.
由于人工耳蜗植入导致的伪影、耳蜗解剖结构的变异以及缺乏耳蜗解剖的标准术语,通过CT对人工耳蜗进行成像具有挑战性。本项目的目的是确定在斜位CT重建图像上人工耳蜗尖端的定位是否比在标准图像上更准确,回顾放射学报告中人工耳蜗的准确位置,并通过使用标准化的耳蜗解剖术语来描述人工耳蜗深度,评估植入外科医生和神经放射科医生之间的一致性。
在这项回顾性研究中,一名神经放射科医生和一名植入外科医生独立查看了36例植入人工耳蜗的颞骨CT图像。比较了直接轴位图像、标准冠状位重建图像和平行于耳蜗的斜位重建图像,以确定植入物尖端的位置,并使用提议的标准化象限术语进行描述。将植入物位置与最初解读的神经放射科医生生成的初始正式报告进行比较。
对36例植入人工耳蜗的颞骨进行了CT植入物位置解读。在轴位和冠状位图像以及斜位重建图像上使用象限命名法比较人工耳蜗尖端位置时,观察者间的一致性相似。临床放射学报告在描述人工耳蜗尖端位置时均不准确且含糊不清。
通过评估轴位、冠状位和斜位CT图像上的植入物尖端,可以准确确定人工耳蜗阵列的插入深度,但由于缺乏标准化术语,尖端位置的描述可能不准确。我们建议使用标准化术语,以圆窗为零参考点并通过象限编号来描述耳蜗旋转,以此来传达尖端位置。这将提高放射学报告在人工耳蜗插入深度方面的准确性和一致性。