Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:06:04.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging in paediatric cochlear implant assessment: a pilot study and our experience at Great Ormond Street Hospital

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2018

H Kanona ,
K Stephenson ,
F D'Arco ,
K Rajput ,
L Cochrane  and
C Jephson
H Kanona*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
K Stephenson
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
F D'Arco
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
K Rajput
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
L Cochrane
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
C Jephson
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Hala Kanona, Department of Otolaryngology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London WC1N 3JH, UK E-mail: hkanona@yahoo.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

To date, there is a lack of consensus regarding the use of both computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-operative assessment of cochlear implant candidates.

Methods

Twenty-five patients underwent high-resolution computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. ‘Control scores’ describing the expected visualisation of specific features by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were established. An independent radiological review of all computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scan features was then compared to the control scores and the findings recorded.

Results

Agreement with control scores occurred in 83 per cent (20 out of 24) of computed tomography scans and 91 per cent (21 out of 23) of magnetic resonance imaging scans. Radiological abnormalities were demonstrated in 16 per cent of brain scans and 18 per cent of temporal bone investigations.

Conclusion

Assessment in the paediatric setting constitutes a special situation given the likelihood of congenital temporal bone abnormalities and associated co-morbidities that may be relevant to surgery and prognosis following cochlear implantation. Both computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging contribute valuable information and remain necessary in paediatric cochlear implant pre-operative assessment.

Keywords

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedMagnetic Resonance ImagingCochlear ImplantationEarCongenital Abnormalities
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 529 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr H Kanona takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented at the British Association for Paediatric Otolaryngology Annual Meeting, 16 September 2016, Liverpool, UK.

References

1Young, JY, Ryan, ME, Young, NM. Preoperative imaging of sensorineural hearing loss in pediatric candidates for cochlear implantation. Radiographics 2014;34:E133–49Google Scholar
2Tamplen, M, Schwalje, A, Lustig, L, Alemi, AS, Miller, ME. Utility of preoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in adult and pediatric cochlear implant candidates. Laryngoscope 2016;126:1440–5Google Scholar
3Trimble, K, Blaser, S, James, AL, Papsin, BC. Computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging before pediatric cochlear implantation? Developing an investigative strategy. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:317–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Sennaroglu, L, Saatci, I, Aralasmak, A, Gursel, B, Turan, E. Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography in pre-operative evaluation of cochlear implant candidates with congenital hearing loss. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:804–10Google Scholar
5Bamiou, DE, Worth, S, Phelps, P, Sirimanna, T, Rajput, K. Eighth nerve aplasia and hypoplasia in cochlear implant candidates: the clinical perspective. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:492–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Jackler, RK, Luxford, WM, House, WF. Congenital malformations of the inner ear: a classification based on embryogenesis. Laryngoscope 1987;97:2–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Buchman, CA, Copeland, BJ, Yu, KK, Brown, CJ, Carrasco, VN, Pillsbury, HC. Cochlear implantation in children with congenital inner ear malformations. Laryngoscope 2004;114:309–16Google Scholar
8Sennaroglu, L. Cochlear implantation in inner ear malformations--a review article. Cochlear Implants Int 2010;11:4–41Google Scholar
9Homerton University Hospital Radiology price list. In: http://www.homerton.nhs.uk/media/174141/1251-private-patient-tariff-for-2014-15.pdf [26 February 2018]Google Scholar
10Saunders, DE, Thompson, C, Gunny, R, Jones, R, Cox, T, Chong, WK. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for paediatric neuroradiology. Pediatr Radiol 2007;37:789–97Google Scholar
11Jonas, NE, Ahmed, J, Grainger, J, Jephson, CG, Wyatt, ME, Hartley, BE et al. MRI brain abnormalities in cochlear implant candidates: how common and how important are they? Int J Pediatric Otorhinolaryngol 2012;76:927–9Google Scholar
12Bettman, RH, Van Olphen, F, Zonneveld, FW, Huizing, EH. Preoperative imaging protocol for cochlear implant candidates. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:1028–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Ellul, S, Shelton, C, Davidson, HC, Harnsberger, HR. Preoperative cochlear implant imaging: is magnetic resonance imaging enough? Am J Otol 2000;21:528–33Google Scholar
14Parry, DA, Booth, T, Roland, PS. Advantages of magnetic resonance imaging over computed tomography in preoperative evaluation of pediatric cochlear implant candidates. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:976–82Google Scholar
15Gleeson, 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;117:692–5Google Scholar