Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr 1;45(4):398-403.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004157.

Preoperative Imaging in Cochlear Implants

Andrew Y Lee  1 , Diana Y Lee  2 , James E Saunders
Affiliations

Preoperative Imaging in Cochlear Implants

Andrew Y Lee et al. Otol Neurotol. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine the utility of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in cochlear implant candidates.

Study design: Retrospective case review.

Setting: Tertiary referral hospital.

Patients: A total of 207 cochlear implanted patients with CT and/or MRI.

Interventions: N/A.

Main outcome measures: Age versus abnormal radiologic findings, imaging abnormality versus postoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes versus electrode design, Cambridge Cochlear Implant Protocol (CCIP) status for imaging abnormalities, sensitivity and specificity of CT and MRI for round-window/cochlear occlusion, and MRI for incomplete partitions.

Results: A total of 207 patients with CT, MRI, or both were reviewed retrospectively. Less than half (15.5%) of CT scans had findings that might affect surgical intervention compared with 5.9% of MRI. No significant difference was found between children and adults for relevant imaging abnormalities (grade 4 or higher) with either CT (p = 0.931) or MRI (p = 0.606). CCIP status correlated with cochlear abnormalities (p = 0.040); however, only 46.2% of radiographic abnormalities on CT would be identified by these criteria. For detecting cochlear occlusion requiring surgical intervention, the sensitivity and specificity for CT were 40% (4 of 10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.16-73.76) and 95.73% (95% CI, 91.40-98.27), respectively. For MRI, the sensitivity and specificity were 33.33% (1 of 3; 95% CI, 0.84-90.57) and 96.97% (63 of 65; 95% CI, 89.32-99.63), respectively. There was no difference for postoperative AzBio scores for higher-grade imaging abnormalities (p = 0.6012) or for electrode designs (p = 0.3699).

Conclusions: Significant radiographic abnormalities were relatively uncommon in cochlear implant patients on either CT or MRI at our single-center institution. If present, abnormal imaging findings rarely translated to management changes. CCIP status does not reliably predict which patients are likely to have abnormalities. Both MRI and CT have low sensitivity for round-window or cochlear occlusion, but detection likely leads to changes in surgical management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Nassiri AM, Sorkin DL, Carlson ML. Current estimates of cochlear implant utilization in the United States. Otol Neurotol 2022;43:e558–62.
    1. GBD 2019 Hearing Loss Collaborators. Hearing loss prevalence and years lived with disability, 1990–2019: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2021;397:996–1009.
    1. Keidar E, Singh J, Santiago-Rivera OJ, Wilkerson B, Babu S. Utility and value of pre-operative CT and MRI for cochlear implantation in the elderly. Am J Otolaryngol 2021;42:102853.
    1. Magro I, Emmett SD, Saunders J. Cost-effectiveness of CI in developing countries. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;26:190–5.
    1. Emmett SD, Tucci DL, Bento RF, et al. Moving beyond GDP: Cost effectiveness of cochlear implantation and deaf education in Latin America. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1040–8.

LinkOut - more resources