CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2006; 16(03): 385-392
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.29025
Original Article

Imaging of cochlear implants

A Chaturvedi
Dept. of Radiodiagnosis, Command Hospital, Bangalore, India
,
C Mohan
Dept. of Radiodiagnosis, Command Hospital, Bangalore, India
,
SB Mahajan
Dept. of Radiodiagnosis, Command Hospital, Bangalore, India
,
Vipin Kakkar
Dept. of Radiodiagnosis, Command Hospital, Bangalore, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
 

Abstract

Aim : To evaluate the role of various imaging modalities in pre and post operative evaluation of cochlear implant candidates. Materials and methods : 30 patients were evaluated by HRCT and 15 of these subsequently underwent MRI temporal bones prior to cochlear implant device insertion. All implanted patients were subjected to post operative radiography to assess position of implant. Results : Both modalities provided critical information on abnormalities of the otic capsule, pneumatisation of the mastoid, middle ear abnormalities, cochlear ducts patency and vascular abnormalities- thus helping to assess the suitability of the ear for implantation, determine the side to be implanted and to find any associated abnormality which could adversely influence the surgery or post op period. HRCT missed two cases of luminal ossification and MRI was more reliable in detecting early luminal obstruction. Conclusion : Based on our findings, we offer a realistic and practical protocol for imaging in cochlear implants in the Indian setting. HRCT is recommended in all patients for pre implant analysis of the temporal bone morphology due to its reliability and easy availability. MRI is recommended in all cases of post meningitic deafness and in others with doubtful CT findings.

Keywords

Cochlear implants - HRCT temporal bone - MRI cochlea


Publication History

Article published online:
02 August 2021

© 2006. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Gleeson TG, Lacy PD, Bresnihan M, Gaffney R, Brennan P, Viani L. High resolution computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-operative assessment of cochlear implant patients. J Laryngol Otol. 2003 Sep; 117(9):692-5.
  • 2 Fishman AJ, Holliday RA. Principles of Cochlear Implant Imaging. Cochlear Implants. Thieme Medical Publishers Inc: 2000.pgs 79-103
  • 3 Jackler RK, Luxford WM, House WF. Congenital Malformations of the inner ear: a classification based on embryogenesis. Laryngoscope 1987; 97:2-14.
  • 4 Harnsberger HR, Dart DJ, Parkin JL, Smoker WR, Osborne AG. Cochlear Implant candidates: assessment with CT and MR imaging. Radiology 1987 164: 53-57.
  • 5 Schwartz JD, Mandell DM, Faerber EN et al. Labyrinthine ossification: etiologies and CT findings. Radiology 1985; 157:395-98.
  • 6 Abdullah A, Mahmud MR, Maimunah A, Zulfiqar MA, Saim L, Mazlan R. Preoperative high resolution CT and MR imaging in cochlear implantation. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2003 Jul; 32(4):442-5.
  • 7 Jackler RK, Luxford WM, Schindler Ra, McKerrow WS. Cochlear patency problems in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope1987;97:801-805
  • 8 Parry DA, Booth T, Roland PS. Advantages of magnetic resonance imaging over computed tomography in preoperative evaluation of pediatric cochlear implant candidates. Otol Neurotol. 2005 Sep; 26(5):976-82.
  • 9 Bettman R, Beek E, Van Olphen A, Zonneveld F, Huizing E. MRI versus CT in assessment of cochlear patency in cochlear implant candidates. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004 Jun; 124(5):577-81.
  • 10 Frau GN, Luxford WM, William WM, Berliner K. High Resolution Computed Tomography in Evaluation of Cochlear Patency in Implant Candidates. J of Laryngology and Otology1994; 108:743-748.
  • 11 Lemmerling M, Vanzeileghem B, Dhooge I, et al. CT and MRI of the semicircular canals in normal and diseased temporal bone. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:1210-9.
  • 12 Purcell D, Johnson J, Fischbein N, Lalwani A. Establishment of normative cochlear and vestibular measurements to aid in the diagnosis of inner ear malformations. Otol Head Neck Surg 2003; 128:78-87.
  • 13 Magnetic resonance imaging and cochlear implants: compatibility and safety aspects. Teissl C, Kremser C, Hochmair ES, Hochmair-Desoyer IJ. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Jan; 9(1):26-38.
  • 14 Clinical results of the CLARION magnet less cochlear implant. Weber BP, Neuburger J, Goldring JE, Santogrossi T, Koestler H, Battmer RD, Lenarz T. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1999 Apr; 177:22-6.
  • 15 Ellul S, Shelton c, Davidson, HC, Harnsberger HR. Preoperative Cochlear implant imaging: Is Magnetic Resonance Imaging Enough? American Journal of Otology 2000; 21:528-533.