Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiological Parameters Predicting the Round Window Niche Visibility through Facial Recess Approach in Cochlear Implantation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

The aim was to study the radiological parameters using High Resolution Computed Tomography (HRCT) temporal bone to predict the Round Window Niche (RWN) visibility through the facial recess approach and to study radiological types of the round window niche.

Materials and Methods

Prospective study was done in the patients underwent CI surgery from 2019 to 2021. HRCT radiological parameters of the patients and their intraoperative visualisation from video recordings were compared to predict the most feasible parameters to predict good visualisation of RWN.

Results

Among 51 patients (34 males, 17 females) in 48 children round window membrane insertion was done and in three children cochleostomy was done and in two children partial canal wall drilling was done due to poor visualisation of RWN area. Multiple parameters to assess the visibility of the RWN were used. Facial recess width (4.2 mm), location of the mastoid segment of facial nerve (2 mm), external auditory canal to basal turn of cochlea angle (< 13.50) and the radiological types (tunnel shape and semi-circular shape) of the RWN by HRCT were found to be significant parameters in predicting a good visualisation of the RWN.

Conclusion

HRCT parameters prepare the surgeon to face the possibility of a difficult surgery and plan to deal with difficult situations. This would eventually lead to better preparedness of surgeons for management of complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Varshney S (2016) Deafness in India. Indian J Otology 22(2):73. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-7749.182281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Garg S, Chadha S, Malhotra S, Agarwal AK (2009) Deafness: burden, prevention and control in India. Natl Med J India 22(2):79–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Korver AMH, Smith RJH, Van Camp G, Schleiss MR, Bitner-Glindzicz MAK, Lustig LR et al (2017) Congenital hearing loss. Nat Rev Dis Primers 3(1):16094. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2016.94

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Suri N, Sandilya S, Sayani R, Anand A (2020) Impact of the Surgical Approach: a comparative study between transcanal and posterior Tympanotomy Approach for Cochlear Implantation. Annals of Otology and Neurotology 3(01):10–15. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Szyfter W, Karlik M, Sekula A, Harris S, Gawęcki W (2019) Current indications for cochlear implantation in adults and children. Otolaryngol Pol 73(3):1–5. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Young JY, Ryan ME, Young NM (2014) Preoperative imaging of sensorineural hearing loss in pediatric candidates for cochlear implantation. Radiographics 34(5):E133–149. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.345130083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cullen RD, Higgins C, Buss E, Clark M, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA (2004) Cochlear implantation in patients with substantial residual hearing. Laryngoscope 114(12):2218–2223. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000149462.88327.7f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. von Ilberg C, Kiefer J, Tillein J, Pfenningdorff T, Hartmann R, Stürzebecher E et al (1999) Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 61(6):334–340. https://doi.org/10.1159/000027695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lehnhardt E (1993) Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft Surgery technique. Hno 41(7):356–359 PMID: 8376183

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vaid S, Vaid N, Manikoth M, Zope A (2015) Role of HRCT and MRI of the temporal bone in Predicting and Grading the Degree of Difficulty of Cochlear Implant Surgery. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 67(2):150–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-015-0858-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Xie LH, Tang J, Miao WJ, Tang XL, Li H, Tang AZ (2018) Preoperative evaluation of cochlear implantation through the round window membrane in the facial recess using high-resolution computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat 40(6):705–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-018-1972-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Massey FJ (1951) The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit. J Am Stat Assoc 46(253):68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ruopp MD, Perkins NJ, Whitcomb BW, Schisterman EF (2008) Youden Index and Optimal Cut-Point estimated from observations affected by a lower limit of detection. Biom J 50(3):419–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200710415

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee DH, Kim JK, Seo JH, Lee BJ (2012) Anatomic limitations of posterior tympanotomy: what is the major radiologic determinant for the View Field through posterior tympanotomy? J Craniofac Surg 23(3):817–820. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824e6ca7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Akobeng AK (2007) Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr 96(5):644–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hasaballah MS, Hamdy TA (2014) Evaluation of facial nerve course, posterior tympanotomy width and visibility of round window in patients with cochlear implantation by performing oblique sagittal cut computed tomographic scan temporal bone. Egypt J Otolaryngol 30(4):317–321. https://doi.org/10.4103/1012-5574.144963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Júnior LRPL, Rocha MD, Walsh PV, Antunes CA, Calhau CMDF (2008) Evaluation by imaging methods of cochlear implant candidates: radiological and surgical correlation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 74(3):395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1808-8694(15)30574-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Alam-Eldeen M, Rashad U, Ali AH (2017) Radiological requirements for surgical planning in cochlear implant candidates. Indian J Radiol Imaging 27(3):274. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijri.IJRI_55_17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Park E, Amoodi H, Kuthubutheen J, Chen JM, Nedzelski JM, Lin VYW (2015) Predictors of round window accessibility for adult cochlear implantation based on pre-operative CT scan: a prospective observational study. J of Otolaryngol - Head & Neck Surg 44(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-015-0073-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kashio A, Sakamoto T, Karino S, Kakigi A, Iwasaki S, Yamasoba T (2014) Otology & Neurotology 1. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000644. Predicting Round Window Niche Visibility via the Facial Recess Using High-Resolution Computed Tomography

  21. Elzayat S, Mandour M, Lotfy R, Mahrous A (2018) Predicting round window visibility during cochlear implantation using high resolution CT scan. J Int Adv Otology 14(1):15. https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2018.4229

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no funding required to take up the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, NEIGRIHMS, Meghalaya, India

    Sauradeep Das

  2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, JIPMER, Puducherry, India

    Kalaiarasi Raja & Vishak MS

  3. Department of Radiodiagnosis, JIPMER, Puducherry, India

    G Ramkumar

  4. Department of ENT., Puducherry, India

    Sivaraman Ganesan, Arun Alexander & Lokesh Kumar Penubarthi

Authors
  1. Sauradeep Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kalaiarasi Raja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G Ramkumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vishak MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sivaraman Ganesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arun Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lokesh Kumar Penubarthi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors have equally contributed to the case report. SD and KR is the major contributor in writing the manuscript. GR and VMS participated in writing, editing and data interpretation along with SD and KR. SG,AA,LKP have commented on all the previous drafts, took part in writing and approved the article along with all the other authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kalaiarasi Raja.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The study was taken after obtaining an Ethics committee approval (IEC No.: JIP/IEC/2019/213) from the Institution of Ethics Committee, JIPMER, Pondicherry, India.

Consent for Publication

Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details and/or clinical images was obtained from the patient. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor of this journal.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Das, S., Raja, K., Ramkumar, G. et al. Radiological Parameters Predicting the Round Window Niche Visibility through Facial Recess Approach in Cochlear Implantation. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 76, 944–952 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-023-04333-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-023-04333-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation